M SHETTAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by the plaintiffs. Respondents are the defendants in a suit filed for partition and separate possession & for granting of consequential reliefs. After commencement of trial, I.A. No.49 filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC having been rejected, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Shri B.S.Kamate, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the Trial Court has refused bonafide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendment proposed vide I.A. No.49, by adopting a narrow approach to the matter. He submitted that I.A. No.49 ought to have been allowed, if necessary, by putting the plaintiffs/applicants on terms, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order being irrational, interference is warranted.

(3.) Shri Harsh Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that, item Nos.1 to 3 of the schedule have been acquired and that item No.4 of the schedule was sold by plaintiff No.1, prior to the institution of the suit and in the circumstances, the prayer in I.A. No.49 being malafide and dishonest and I.A. No.49 having been filed at the fag end of the proceedings in the suit, learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment of the pliant. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the view taken by the learned Trial Judge to reject I.A. No.49.