(Prayer: This WP is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to-interfere with the order at Annexure-A dated 15.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.24 and the common order at Annexure-B dated 22.07.2019 on I.A.No.21 to 23 in O.S.No.46/2015 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge at Davanagere by setting aside the said orders.)

Oral Order

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders dated 15.07.2019 and 22.07.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.21 to 24 in O.S.No.46/15 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davangere (for short 'Trial Court).

2. Sri. Dheeraj, learned counsel for Sri. Sanathkumar Sheety K., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners' suit is for declaration, permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants contending that 24 square feet of the plaintiffs' land has been encroached by the defendants. In the said suit, the trial was concluded and matter was posted for argument. At that stage, these applications were moved for amendment of the written statement as well as seeking condonation of delay and recalling defendant No.3 to adduce his further evidence which came to be allowed by the Trial Court without appreciating the fact that such applications are nothing but an abuse of process of law and cause further delay in disposing the suit and such applications have also filed to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Sri. S.D.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supports the impugned orders of the Trial court and submits that insofar as the amendment of written statement is concerned, the application filed for amendment indicates two amendments, one amendment was allowed which was a typographical error in the written statement and other amendment was rejected which was not challenged by the defendants. It is submitted that the other applications to recall defendant No.3 to adduce his further evidence is only to the extent of bringing on record the another judicial proceeding pending before the same parties and the same has been considered by the Trial Court and allowed the applications and the same does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

5. The petitioners herein filed O.S.No.46/2015 for relief of declaration, mandatory injunction, delivery of possession, for permanent injunction and other reliefs. In the said suit, the respondents have filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. The parties adduced the evidence. The matter was concluded and posted for argument. At that stage, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.21 to 24 seeking to reopen the case, recalling the defendant No.3 by condoning the delay and for production of documents and also sought for amendment of the written statement. A perusal of the application in I.A.No.24 for amendment of the Written Statement indicates that the petitioners have sought for insertion of a numeric '2000' instead of '2004' in 27th line of paragraph 30 of the Written Statement. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. It is to be noticed that the said amendment would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs. The defendants intended to convey that the Temple is constructed in the year 2000 instead of 2004 and the sought amendment would not change the defence taken by the defendants. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have also sought amendment to paragraph 37 by inserting paragraph 37(A), which was rejected by the Trial Court and which has attained finality. Insofar as other applications are concerned to reopen the case, recalling defendant No.3 to adduce his further evidence and to produce the documents. A perusal of the said applications indicate that the defendants intended to place on record the fact that there is a suit in O.S.25/2017 pending between the same parties, which was filed by the defendants. The Trial Court considering the averments made in the applications filed, allowed the applications for amendment as well as the reopening of the case and to adduce further evidence of defendant No.3. I do not find any error in the orders of the Trial Court and hence does not call for any interference. The impugned order of the Trial Court dated 15.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.24, at the operative portion of the order, there is a typographical error. Hence, the amendment should be read and understood as '2000' instead of '2004'. The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs by allowing to adduce further evidence by the defendant No.3. The trial Court has further observed that it is open for the plaintiffs to cross- examine the witnesses after adducing the evidence.

With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition is disposed of.