1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.80032/2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SHASHAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA ARIBENCHI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ASTEKAR BUILDING, KOLI GALLI, ..PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SHRIKANT T PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. RENUKA W/O. GOPAL MALALI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOUSE NO. 4634/1, BHADAKA GALLI, BELGAUM 2

2. MANJUNATH S/O. FAKKIRAPPA ARIBENCHI AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. NEAR KUBASAD HOSPITAL, SIDDARAMESHWAR COLONY, MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT

3. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. BASAVENNEPPA ARIBANCHI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. TEACHER R/O. GOVT. BOYS MODEL SCHOOL VILLAGE, TQ: , DIST: BELGAUM

4. ADIVEPPA @ SURESH S/O. BASAVANNEPPA ARIBENCHI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. VILLAGE, TQ: , DIST: BELGAUM

5. MANOHAR S/O. BASAVANNEPPA ARIBENCHI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. NEW AMAR ELECTRICALS, GOKAK ROAD, VILALGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM 3

6. RAJENDRA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA ARIBENCHI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. JIVAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI, NOW AT: R/O. ASTEKAR BUILDING, KOLI GALLI, (INDIRA COLONY) BELGAUM

7. SHANKUNTALA W/O. GOVINDAPPA DEVARADDY AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NISHANDAR BUILDING, AYYAPPA SWAMY COLONY, NEAR COURT SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM

8. SULACHANA W/O. TIMMARADDY AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO. 71, CHANNAMMA SOCIETY, SHRI NAGAR, BELGAUM

9. KADAPPA @ UMESH S/O. BASAPPA AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ONTGODI VILLAGE, TQ:MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT 4

10. PARAWATAVVA W/O. ADIVEPPA @ SURESH ARIBENCHI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JEEVAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, BELGAUM ..RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON I.ANO.15 DATED:28/11/2012 IN O.S.NO.4/2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), SAUNDATTI AT ANNEXURE-F.

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

O R D E R

Heard Learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the impugned order. During the pendency of the suit an application for amendment of plaint came to be filed by plaintiff and said application came to be allowed by trial court by order dated 19.10.2010. Order sheet produced at Annexure-F to the writ petition would indicate that on account of non filing of objections to I.A.VI 5

(application for amendment filed by plaintiff) said application came to be allowed. Thereafter matter has been adjourned to 10.11.2010 for amendment of plaint.

Order sheet dated 10.11.2010 would indicate that amended plaint has been furnished and I.A.VII has also been allowed on the same day. Further dates in the order sheet would indicate that on allowing I.A.VI for amendment no opportunity has been given to the defendants to file the additional written statement if any which ought to have been given by trial court.

2. It is no doubt true that sixth defendant has subsequently filed I.A.XV seeking permission to file the additional written statement belatedly i.e., after a period of two years. Though the reasons assigned by the trial court cannot be accepted conclusion arrived at in dismissing the application cannot be found fault with.

However, at the same time it is to be noticed that in view of the plaintiff having amended the plaint on 6

10.11.2010 pursuant to order dated 19.10.2010 trial court ought to have granted opportunity to defendants to file additional written statement. Undisputedly no such opportunity has been given. In that view of the matter it would suffice if sixth defendant/writ petitioner is granted liberty to file one more application seeking permission to file additional written statement and if such application is filed, trial court shall consider the same on merits by taking note of the observation made herein above. With this observation writ petition stands disposed of.

SD/- JUDGE

SBN