ia for amendment

7/30/2019 IA for Amendment

1/3

IN THE COURT OF THE VACATION CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. _____ of 2013

In

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. OF 2013

BETWEEN:

Sri Abraham T.J. and others Plaintiffs

AND:

Bharatiya Janata Party and others Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION

151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

1. The plaintiffs respectfully seek that the facts, averments,contentions, pleadings, argument and every other narration

contained in the accompanying plaint may kindly be treated

as forming an integral part of this interlocutory application.

2. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that an inconsequentialmodification is sought to be made in the cause title to the

plaint and the same is as follows:

3. The address of the Defendant No.5, Sri Jagadish ShivappaShettar is stated in the cause title to the plaint as under:

Sri Jagadish Shivappa Shettar

Chief Minister of KarnatakaSworn in as the 21st Chief

Minister

Bharatiya Janata Party, KarnatakaHaving its Head Office at

Jagannatha Bhavana

#48, Temple Street, 11th Cross

Malleshwaram

Bangalore 560 003

State of Karnataka


2/3

4. As may be seen from the above, there is a reference to the factthat the aforesaid defendant is the Chief Minister of the

Government of Karnataka. However, the aforesaid description

is merely made for the purpose of identification and is not the

description also of the cause of action against the aforesaid

defendant. The plaintiffs did not ever intend to sue the

aforesaid defendant in his capacity as the Chief Minister of

Karnataka. He is being sued merely as an agent of the

principal defendant, BJP Political Party and a person whoexecuted and completed the fraudulent scheme and

misrepresentation of the principal defendant, BJP Political

Party. As such, the reference to the fact that he also is the

Chief Minister of Karnataka is to prevent service of the notice

to a wrong person as the plaintiffs apprehend that, with

thousands of persons acting as members and agents of the

principal defendant, BJP Political Party, there exists the

possibility of service to a wrong person who shares the same

name as the fifth defendant.

5. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that a greater attention tothe address as stated by these plaintiffs of the aforesaid 5th

Defendant would make it abundantly clear that the place and

address for service of notice to the aforesaid defendant is thatof the Bharatiya Janata Party at its chosen office in the city

of Bangalore and not of the official, or personal residential

address of the said defendant.

6. For the same reasons as aforesaid, the defendants No.2 and 4have also been identified with respect to their holding of the

previous office of the Chief Minister though they are beingsued in a different capacity altogether, as explained above.

7. As such, this Interlocutory Application is preferred for thepurpose of removing any doubt over whether the description

of the 5th defendant in the cause title to the instant suit


3/3

invites the application of the rule stated in Section 80 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the facts and special circumstances of this

case, this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Consider as deleted, the words Chief Minister ofKarnatakaSworn in as the 21st Chief Minister in the

cause title in respect of the 5th defendant, Sri Jagadish

Shivappa Shettar, to the instant plaint;

b) Pass any other order or to issue any direction as may bedeemed expedient by this Honble Court to be desirable

in the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice,

equity and good conscience.

Bangalore

Date: 03-May-2013 Advocate for Plaintiffs

ia for amendment

Documents