: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

Dated this the 31 st day of March 2016

Before

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

Writ Petition Nos.101873-101875/2016 (GM-CPC) C/w W.P. No.85543/2013 (GM-CPC)

In W.P. Nos.101873-101875/2016 Between 1. Shri M.Kishor, S/o M.Raja Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tandihal Camp, Tal: Gangavati.

2. Shri M.Vasudevrao, S/o M.Raja Rao, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tandihal Camp, Tal: Gangavati. …Petitioners

(By Sri Sangram S.Kulkarni, Advocate)

A n d

1. Shri T.Muralidhar, S/o T.Venkatrathnam, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tal: Gangavati.

2. Shri T.Chandramouli, S/o T.Venkatrathnam, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tal: Gangavati.

3. Smt. T.Baby, W/o T.Muralidhar, S/o T.Venkatrathnam, : 2 :

Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tal: Gangavati.

4. Smt. Supriya, W/o T.Mohan, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tal: Gangavati.

5. Shri M.Raja Rao, S/o Umamaheshwar Rao, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tal: Gangavati.

6. Smt. M.Vanajakshi, W/o M.Raja Rao, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household work, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tal: Gangavati. ...Respondents

(By Sri S.H.Mittalkod & Sri Vinay Koujalagi, Advocates)

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of praying to issue a writ of certiorari modifying the order passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Gangavati on 03.02.2016 in O.S.No.2/2011 vide Annexure-J on I.A. No.16 to 18. ------

In W.P. No.85543/2013 Between 1. M.Kishore, S/o M.Raja Rao, Age: 39 years, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: .

2. M.Vasudevrao, S/o M.Raja Rao, Age: 36 years, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal. …Petitioners

(By Sri V.P.Kulkarni, Advocate) : 3 :

A n d

1. T.Muralidhar, S/o T.Venkatratnam, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal.

2. T.Chandramouli, S/o T.Venkatratnam, Age: 34 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal.

3. T.Baby, W/o T.Venkatratnam, Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal.

4. Supriya, W/o T.Mohan, Age: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal.

5. M.Raja Rao, S/o Umamaheshwar Rao, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal.

6. M.Vanajakshi, W/o M.Raja Rao, Age: 57 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Tondihal Camp, Tq: Gangavati, Dist: Koppal. ...Respondents

(By Sri S.H.Mittalkod & Sri Vinay Koujalagi, Advocates) : 4 :

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gangavati in O.S.No.2/2011 on I.A. No.7 dated 16.11.2013 vide Annexure-J.

These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day the Court made the following:-

ORDER

Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No.2/2011. Application filed by them seeking amendment of plaint has been rejected.

Separate applications filed for permitting the plaintiffs to file list of witnesses, to issue summons to the Bank Manager and to issue witness summons to the Bank Manager to produce documents have been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed these three writ petitions.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Application filed seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected on the ground that plaintiffs themselves had earlier asserted that defendants 1 to 4 were wife and children of deceased T.Venkatratnam. It is on this basis that suit for specific performance filed by T.Venkatratnam had been decreed against the parents of the present plaintiffs. Appeal filed against the said decree was dismissed. Now, when the : 5 :

matter was at the stage of evidence, plaintiffs came up with the present application pleading that defendants 1 to 4 were in no way related to T.Venkatratnam. According to them, they learnt about this from some of the documents which were in the custody of the Bank. Therefore, they wanted to amend the plaint and to summon the Bank Manager and as also to produce documents in the custody of the Bank to establish the said plea that defendants 1 to 4 were not related to

T.Venkatratnam.

3. The Court below has rejected all the applications, but has permitted the plaintiff to produce list of documents.

Reasons given for rejection of the application for amendment of the plaint apparently is that at such belated stage, plaintiffs could not be permitted to raise such a plea having admitted the relationship at the time of filing the suit. It is also stated by the Court below that issue of relationship was not raised even in the previous suit filed by T.Venkatratnam for specific performance of agreement of sale against the parents of the present plaintiffs. : 6 :

4. Reasons assigned and conclusion reached by the

Court are unexceptional. I do not find any good ground

warranting interference by this Court. Similarly, rejection of

the other two applications which are meant only to come to

conclusion on the amendment of the plaint also cannot be

found fault with. Hence, writ petitions being devoid of merits

are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Kms