- (1.)Plaintiffs in O.S. 46/97 before Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Bidar have filed these writ petitions questioning the Order dated 21.11.2011 passed on I.A. No. XI, Annexure-E in so far as direction issued white allowing I.A. XI filed by the plaintiffs for amendment holding thereunder that said amendment shall not relate back to the date of filing of the suit but it will take effect from the date of filing of the application I.A. XI which was on 24.11.2011 and seeks for quashing of the said portion of the order and petitioner is also seeking for quashing of the Order dated 24.01.2012, Annexure-F directing the Sub-Registrar to furnish the market value of the suit property during 2011 to enable the Trial Court to pass orders on issue No. 4. Having heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners as well as respondents it was ordered to be listed for dictating on 28.09.2012. However, on the said date the matter did not reach and as such it has been listed today for dictating the orders.
(2.)The contention of Sri. R.V. Nadagouda, Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is defendant/respondent No. 2 filed the written statement on 25.07.2011 denying the title of the plaintiff and this necessitated the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint and as such he contends that Trial Court committed a error in applying the 'doctrine of relation back' to the facts on hand and ordering for amendment to take effect from the date of filing of the application. He would further elaborate his submissions by contending that in the instant case petitioner-plaintiff instituted the suit O.S. 46/97 and on account of the defendants having filed the suit O.S. 18/97 which was earlier to the suit of the present petitioner/plaintiff i.e., 46/97, said suit came to be stayed under Section 10 of C.P.C and after dismissal of the suit on 14.07.2010, 2nd defendant in the present suit filed the written statement on 25.07.2011 and within three months from the said date application for amendment of plaint seeking declaration of title was filed in view of defendants denying the title of the plaintiff and contends that delay factor would not by itself be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that amendment would not relate back to the date of filing of the suit but from the date of filing of the application. He would also further contend that Trial Court erred in not holding Court Fees has to be paid as per the valuation of the property as on the date of the suit and there cannot be two dates in a suit for payment of Court Fees and as such the order of the Trial Court dated 24.01.2012 Annexure-F directing the Sub-Registrar to furnish the market value of the suit property as on 2011 is liable to be quashed and on these grounds he seeks for quashing of the impugned orders and allowing the writ petitions. In support of his submission he relies upon the following judgment:
1. Unreported judgment dated 03.01.2011

passed in W.P. 821/2009 (GM-CPC)

(3.)Per contra, Sri. Manvendra Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would support the order passed by the Trial Court and contends that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned orders. He would also submit that there cannot be universal application of the doctrine of holding that amendment relates back to the date of filing of the suit and in appropriate cases the Courts would be empowered to fix the date of amendment to become effective and as such he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. He would elaborate his submission by contending that principles of estoppel would apply to the facts on hand in as much as petitioner has accepted the order of the Trial Court by amending the plaint and as such he cannot question only a portion of the order particularly when the application has been allowed in part by the Trial Court and the said order having been accepted by petitioner/plaintiff by amending the plaint he cannot turn around and contend that said order is partially incorrect and having consciously accepted the order of the Trial Court, petitioner is estopped from challenging the same. In support of his submission he relies on the following judgments:
1. Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) vs. Ramesh Chander and Others, 2011 AIR(SC) 41 2. Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another, 2002 AIR(SC) 3369 3. Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore vs. Hornor Resources (International) Company Limited, 2011 10 SCC 420.

4. Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, 2009 10 SCC 84.

5. Vishwambhar and Others vs. Laxminarayana (Dead) through L.Rs. and Another, 2001 AIR(SC) 2607