Skip to content


B.N. Kamalanabha Reddy Vs. Munivenkatappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 7778 of 2005
Judge
Reported inILR2006KAR222
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 7, 16 and 16(2); Constitution of India - Article 227
AppellantB.N. Kamalanabha Reddy
RespondentMunivenkatappa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateG.V. Shantharaju, Senior Counsel for ;Shanmukhappa KESVY and Co.
Respondent Advocate G.S. Visveswar Senior Counsel for ;A. Gopalaiah, Adv. for C/R1 to R7
Excerpt:
.....to the code - held - a reading of section 16(2)(b) would make it abundantly clear that some of the provisions are omitted under order 6 and some of the provisions are inserted or substituted by amended code and shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of the amended provision. therefore the proviso cannot be an impediment or bar in allowing the amendment application if it is otherwise on merits deserves to be allowed.;petition rejected. - karnataka land revenue act, 1964 [k.a. no. 12/2006]. sections 129 & 136(3); [n.k. patil, j] mutation entry recording of petitioners name in record of rights in place of another person said order was set aside by tahsildar in appeal with direction to record name of original owner revisional authority quashed.....order 6 rule 17 - amendment of pleadings - whether proposed amendment is permissible after the amendment to the code - held - a reading of section 16(2)(b) would make it abundantly clear that some of the provisions are omitted under order 6 and some of the provisions are inserted or substituted by amended code and shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of the amended provision. therefore the proviso cannot be an impediment or bar in allowing the amendment application if it is otherwise on merits deserves to be allowed.petition rejected.
Judgment:
ORDER

6 RULE 17 - AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - Whether proposed amendment is permissible after the amendment to the Code - HELD - A reading of Section 16(2)(b) would make it abundantly clear that some of the provisions are omitted under order 6 and some of the provisions are inserted or substituted by amended Code and shall not apply in respect of any pleadings filed before the commencement of the amended provision. Therefore the proviso cannot be an impediment or bar in allowing the amendment application if it is otherwise on merits deserves to be allowed.

Petition rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //