IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.801 OF 2021(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. ASHOK BABU G, S/O LATE GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, MUTTON STALL ROAD, NEW NUMBER 10/1, KRISHNAPPA ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560 004.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

• 1. SMT. LAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA PRASAD G, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
• 2. BABY S GAGANA ALIAS SPURTI, D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA PRASAD G, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
• 3. BABY S BHUVANA ALIAS KEERTHI, D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA PRASAD G, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

(RESPONDENT 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT M JAYALAKSHMI) 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.33, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, TATA SILK FARM, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

4. SMT LAKSHMIDEVI ALIAS LAKSHMI, W/O LATE GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, MUTTON STALL ROAD, NEW NUMBER 10/1, KRISHNAPPA ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560 004.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2020 AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI/2015, IN O.S.NO.41/2011, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45) THEREBY ALLOWING THE ABOVE SAID AMENDMENT APPLICATION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunctive suit in O.S.No.41/2011 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 30.11.2020 a copy whereof is at Annexure – E whereby the learned XLIV Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-45), Bengaluru, having rejected his application in IA No.VI/2015 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908, has denied leave to convert the said suit into one for declaration.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, a cause of action based on which the petitioner had structured his amendment application can be litigated separately by instituting an appropriate suit; the observation in the impugned order concerning delay & latches shall be construed as not relating to bar of limitation, which aspect is a matter for treatment in the prospective suit; all contentions are otherwise kept open.

With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed off.

Sd/- JUDGE

Bsv