G N SARVAMANGALA Vs. THULASI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16/12/2015 passed on I.A. No.2 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and I.A.No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi in O.S.No.148/2010.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant and respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.148/2010 filed for judgment and decree to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. When the suit was at the stage of further evidence of P.W-1, the plaintiff filed application I.A.No.2 under der VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint - to add one para 4(a) and to add alternative prayer. The amendment sought in I.A.No.2 reads as follows:-

(3.) In the affidavit in support of the application for amendment, it is stated that the proposed amendment would not introduce any new facts and it would not change the nature of the case. The defendant-petitioner opposed the application by filing objection contending that the prayer sought by way of amendment is barred by limitation and further contended that after commencement of trial, the plaintiffs have not made out a case for amendment as sought. The defendant also filed an application I.A.No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint and the same was opposed by plaintiffs by filing objection. The trial Court by common order dated 16/12/2016 on I.A.Nos.2 and 3, allowed I.A.No.2 for amendment permitting the plaintiffs to amend the suit and rejected I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The common order on I.A.No.2 and 3 dated 16/12/2016 is impugned in this writ petition.