AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.08.2012 passed in IA No. 38 in O.S. No. 3445/2003 on the file of the 37th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, wherein the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking to add the prayer in the plaint for directing the second defendant to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff free from all liabilities. The said application was resisted by the defendants by filing objections. The trial court after hearing the parties has held that the said application is not maintainable at the stage when the matter was posted for arguments of the defendants and has dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff has approached this court by filing this writ petition. Heard Sri. K. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.R. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent.
On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record, it is seen that the suit pertains to the year 2003 and the application for amendment has been filed in the year 2012, i.e., on 09.05.2012, almost 9 years after the date of filing the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of filing of the suit, the prayer was only for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant dated 15.03.2003 is null and void and for further declaring that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to grant relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Nine years after the lapse of filing of the said suit, the plaintiff has come up with a prayer for seeking possession of the suit schedule property.
Sri. S.R. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 relying on the decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) Vs. Ramesh Chander and Others, and Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) Vs. Ramesh Chander and Others, submits that when the matter is posted for arguments of the defendants, the application for amendment of the prayer in the plaint does not lie. Particularly, when it is not claimed while filing the suit regarding possession of the suit schedule property. She was aware that alienation of the suit schedule property was effected on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 15.03.2013 and the suit is filed subsequent to the execution of the sale deed by first defendant in favour of defendant No. 2. It is also to be noted that the sale deed dated 15.03.2003 indicates that the possession of the suit schedule property has been handed over by the first defendant to the second defendant. In that view of the matter, this application filed belatedly does not merit consideration and the same may be rejected. I have gone through the reasoning assigned by the learned trial judge in rejecting the application. The learned trial judge has carefully considered the materials on record and has stated that though the delivery of possession to the defendant No. 2 has taken place in the year 2003 itself, plaintiff has not come up with an application till 2012 and hence the said application cannot be allowed.
I do not see any irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the trial court. In that view of the matter this writ petition does not merit consideration and hence the same is dismissed.