Full Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-11-2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sedam, on LA. No. II in O.S. No. 146 of 1995.
2. The first respondent herein has filed an application under Order 1, Rule 9 of the CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint and also to implead the proposed defendants in the suit.
3. The petitioner has filed objections to the said application stating that the application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Act and further he stated that in one application, the respondent cannot claim more than one relief and it is totally barred under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice.
4. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering the material on record allowed the application filed by the first respondent permitting him to amend the plaint and also to implead the additional defendants in the said suit. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner presented this revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner seeking two prayers in one application is not at all maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is null and void. Further, he pointed out that the proposed respondents are not at all necessary parties to adjudicate the matter in dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore, the Court below has committed an error in bringing the L.Rs on record as additional defendants in the suit.
6. Further, he placed reliance on Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice as per the said rule, there shall be a separate application in respect of each prayer and several prayers should not be combined in one application. This fact has not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court.
7. He farther contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in giving a finding that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit and it is not barred by limitation. The objection raised by the petitioner is a technical objection as the petitioner has sought for two prayers in one application and the same is not maintainable under Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. The Court has given a finding that the application under Order 1, Rule 9 of the CPC is not applicable to implead the party. Merely on the technical ground, the application cannot be rejected. The said finding given by the Trial Court is contrary to the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. The' Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed by the first respondent. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be dismissed in limine.
8. It is the case of the first respondent that he had filed an application seeking permission to amend the plaint and also to implead the proposed respondents in the suit on the ground that the first respondent purchased the suit property from Smt. Nagamma and Mahanandamma under registered sale deeds. The said Smt. Nagamma and Mahanandamma have no right to sell a lane in the suit property to the first respondent and the first respondent being a bona fide purchaser, he sought for impleading Smt. Nagamma and Mahanandamma as necessary parties. The said request made by the petitioner in the application is not all called for. The first respondent contended that the vendors of the first respondent Smt. Nagamma and Mahanandamma have no right, title or interest over the property for executing the sale deed in favour of the first respondent.
9. The first respondent has sought for a declaration to declare that 6 ft. lane is existing in-between the house of the petitioner and the first respondent. In order to prove whether the disputed property is in the lane or not, the fact of existence of the drainage is most essential to decide the case. Therefore, the proposed amendment sought for by the first respondent has to be allowed and it does not change the nature of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and the proposed amendment is most essential in determining the real controversy between the parties. Therefore, he justified the impugned order passed by the Court below stating that the Trial Court has not committed any error or any illegality in passing the impugned order.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by the first respondent is not in accordance with Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. Rule 23 is extracted below:
'There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct prayer. When several prayers are combined in one application, the Court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such prayers and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others'.
11. According to the said rule, there shall be a separate application in respect of each distinct prayer. When several claims are combined in one application, the Court may direct the applicant to confine an application only to one of such prayers and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others. It is clear from the said rule that if a party wants to seek any prayer, he must file separate application for distinct prayer.
12. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has sought two prayers in LA. No. II as it is under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 9 of the CPC. Therefore, the Court below is not justified in considering the request of the first respondent for allowing the said application. In my considered view, the said application filed by the first respondent is not in accordance with Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice and the Trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I. do not find any justification to sustain the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.