ORDERS ON I.A.No.

11

I.A.No. 11 is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w sec.

151 CPC praying that plaintiff may be permitted to
amend the plaint as prayed.

It is contended in affidavit that plaintiff had filed

suit for partition seeking 1/3rd share. During pendency
of present suit his mother expired and now he is entitled
for half share in suit schedule properties. Therefore, it
is prayed that application may be allowed.
Per contra, it is contention of defendant No.2 that
application is filed to harass defendants . If the
application is allowed, it will cause irreparable loss to
defendants. It is prayed that application may be
dismissed.

Heard both sides. Perused records.

Plaintiff is intending to amend his share on the

basis of subsequent events. Proposed amendment
would neither change nature of suit nor cause of action.
The main contention of defendant No.2 is that plaintiff
is not entitled to amend his share. He would have an
opportunity to rebut case of plaintiff. If the application
is rejected, it would lead to multiplicity of proceeding.
Therefore, I am of considered opinion that ends of
justice would be met if present application is allowed.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
 I.A.No.11 filed by plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17
r/w 151 CPC is allowed.

XXIV ACC&SJ,
Bengaluru.

ORDERS ON I.A.NO.9 and 10

I.A.No.9 is filed under Sec. 151 CPC by plaintiff
praying that the case may be re-opened.
I.A.No.10 is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w
sec.151 CPC by plaintiff praying that order dated:
29.5.2018 may be recalled and he may be permitted to
cross-examine DW.1.
It is contended in affidavits that on 29.5.2018 he
had not attended Court as he had undergone surgery.
His advocate was held up in Hon’ble High Court and
Junior advocate was busy in Magistrate Court.
Therefore, they could not attend the Court and the Court
discharged DW.1. They may be permitted to cross-
examine DW.1. It is prayed that applications may be
allowed.
Per contra, it is contention of defendants that
plaintiff was not diligent in prosecuting the case. No
grounds are made out by plaintiff for recall of DW.1. It
is prayed that applications may be dismissed.

Heard both sides. Perused records.

Plaintiff is seeking permission to cross-examine
DW.1. If the applications are rejected, it would lead to
multiplicity of proceeding. Therefore, I am of
considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if
present applications are allowed on costs of Rs.1,000/-
each.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER
I.A.9 and I.A.No.10 filed by plaintiff
under sec.151 C.P.C. are allowed on costs
of Rs.1,000/- each.
Plaintiff shall cross-examine DW.1
without seeking adjournments.
For costs, amendment , amended
plaint and cross of DW.1 by 02.11.2018.

XXIV ACC&SJ,
Bengaluru.