Laxman Rao Vs. Raghavendra and Others

Laxman Rao vs Raghavendra and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Gulbarga Decided Mar 22, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1106205

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1106205
Court: Karnataka Gulbarga High Court
Judge: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Decided On: Mar 22, 2013
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 100495 of 2013 (GM-CPC)
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Laxman Rao

Respondent

Raghavendra and Others

Excerpt

.....dist. gulbarga and etc.) 1. this writ petition is by the first defendant in o.s.no.49/2011 on the file of the court of the civil judge (sr.dn.) at chittapur (originally, suit was filed in the year 2007 in the court of civil judge (sr.dn.) at sedam, that was transferred and renumbered in the year 2011). 2. being aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the senior civil judge at chittapur, district gulbarga, dismissing i.a.no.8 filed under order vi rule 17 of code of civil procedure, 1908, seeking for amendment of written statement etc. 3. in the suit for partition, defendants wanted to set up the plea of one suit item covered under the prayer for amendment as self acquired property etc. 4. learned judge of the trial court dismissed this application, observing that the application for amendment was not bonafide but it was malafide, and several years after filing of the written statement, defendants wants to recile from the earlier stand and set up a new plea by contending that one another suit property was the self acquired property. an application for such amendment filed in july 2012 in a suit that has been filed in the year 2007 is highly belated and therefore, rejected the application. 5. it is aggrieved by this order of rejection, the present writ petition. 6. the matter has been listed before the court for orders regarding counsel's submission. i find no need to produce the typed copy of the plaint pleadings before the trial court. 7. on looking into the merits of the matter, i find, there is no scope for interference in a matter of this nature in exercise of jurisdiction under articles 227 of the constitution of india, particularly, when the trial court exercised jurisdiction to reject the application. 8. accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari by quashing the order at Annexure-E passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.49/2011 dated 02.01.2013 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga and etc.)

1. This writ petition is by the first defendant in O.S.No.49/2011 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Chittapur (originally, suit was filed in the year 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Sedam, that was transferred and renumbered in the year 2011).

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Chittapur, District Gulbarga, dismissing I.A.No.8 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking for amendment of written statement etc.

3. In the suit for partition, defendants wanted to set up the plea of one suit item covered under the prayer for amendment as self acquired property etc.

4. Learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed this application, observing that the application for amendment was not bonafide but it was malafide, and several years after filing of the written statement, defendants wants to recile from the earlier stand and set up a new plea by contending that one another suit property was the self acquired property. An application for such amendment filed in July 2012 in a suit that has been filed in the year 2007 is highly belated and therefore, rejected the application.

5. It is aggrieved by this order of rejection, the present writ petition.

6. The matter has been listed before the Court for orders regarding counsel's submission. I find no need to produce the typed copy of the plaint pleadings before the trial Court.

7. On looking into the merits of the matter, I find, there is no scope for interference in a matter of this nature in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when the trial Court exercised jurisdiction to reject the application.

8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka Gulbarga · 2013 Same Parties Laxman Rao vs Raghavendra and Others Same Subject Education Same Judge D.V. Shylendra Kumar