Shankaragouda Ranganagouda Patil vs. Sharanabasappa Basappa Ganiger

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2001

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. P. CHINNAPPA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2423/2001

Between:

Shankaragouda Ranganagouda Patil, major, Agriculturist, Resident of Ron.

Petitioner

(By Sri.Hemanth Chandanagoudar, Adv.)

And:

Sharanabas appa Bas appa Ganiger, major, Agriculturist, Resident of Ron.

Respondent

1002

ç

NAKNAIAKA

I

(By Sri.B.S.Patil, Adv.)

Civil Revision petition is filed Under Section 115 CPC against the order dated: 11.04.2001 passed on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.305/89 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Ron, allowing I.A.No.V viled U/o 6 Rule 17 CPC etc.,

Civil Revision petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-

D

ORDER

• 2 -

COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF

Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties.

2. The Court below has allowed the amendment application filed by the respondent herein permitting to amend the plaint for the relief of declaration and other consequential amendments. The petitionar who is the defendant being aggrieved by that order, preferred this revision petition.

3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the Court has held that the relief sought barred _by by the respondent not is for limitation. Originally the respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the revenue department from entering the name of the defendant in the revenue records. Subsequently, as the respondent came to know that the revenue department has denied the entries, he sought for declaration that the entries so made are null and void and not binding on him.

4. Under that circumstance, the question of limitation should have been left open for the Court to decide after the necessary written statement is filed by the petitioner. Therefore, to that extent, this order is modified leaving open the question of limitation to be considered by the Court after hearing both the parties.

5. With this modification, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-JUDGE

bkp