IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO.9138/2021 [GM CPC]

BETWEEN :

• 1. SRI.K. S. SHIVASWAMY S/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.39/1 (NO.39/A) SAJAN RAO ROAD, V V PURAM BENGALURU - 560 004.
• 2. SMT. MAYAMMA W/O LATE K SHIVANANJAPPA SINCE DEAD REP BY HIER LR SRI K. S. SHIVASWAMY.

... PETITIONERS

(By SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN., ADVOCATE)

AND :

SRI. C. V. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE M C VENKATRAM AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.693/39/38-01 SAJJAN RAO ROAD, VISHWESHARAPURAM BENGALURU - 560 004.

... RESPONDENT

(SRI. VIVEK HOLLA., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2020 PASSED IN IA NO.6 IN OS NO.16869/2006 BY XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Sri. M.V. Seshachala, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent are heard for final disposal of the petition. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S. No.16869/2006 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru [for short 'civil Court'], have impugned the civil Court's order dated 20.03.2020. The civil Court by this order has allowed the respondent's application [I.A. No.6] under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'CPC'] permitting the respondent to amend his written statement.

2. The learned senior Counsel, after taking this Court through the circumstances of the case leading to the impugned order, submits that the petition could be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file rejoinder to meet the amendment and also lead further evidence including the documentary evidence to rebut the respondent's case as per this amendment. It is pointed out by the learned senior Counsel that the petitioners' application for filing rejoinder has been rejected.

3. In response, Sri. Vivek Holla submits that on the amendment being allowed, the petitioners must have an opportunity to complete their pleadings in that regard and he would have no objection if the petitioners are permitted to file rejoinder to deny the veracity of the amendment now allowed and place on record their pleadings in rebuttal.

3

4. However, on the question of the petitioners being permitted to lead further evidence in the light of the amendment, it is not verifiable whether the petitioners have led evidence on the facts that would touch upon the amendment. Therefore, the following:

ORDER

[a] The writ petition stands disposed of;

[b] The petitioners are permitted to file rejoinder to meet the amendment allowed by the civil Court by its impugned order dated 20.03.2020 in O.S. No.16869/2006 and the petitioners shall file such rejoinder within three weeks from today;

[c] The petitioners shall be at liberty to file necessary application for recall of PW.1 to

4

lead further evidence and if such application is filed, the civil Court shall consider the same in the light of the evidence on record;

SD/- JUDGE

AN/-