- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. G HAFEEZ AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O GHOUSH SHAREEF 2. ALLAH BAKESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O GHOUSH SHAREEF 3. NISSAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O GHOUSH SHAREEF 4. KUSHNUDH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O GHOUSH SHAREEF ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 10, 2ND CROSS, NAGARAJA GUPTHA LAY OUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 030. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SURESH.S. LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRAVAN.S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SIRA BANU W/O LATE K ASIF, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 2. SRI IQBAL SHARIEFF A S/O LATE K ASIF, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 3. SRI A RAMAN SHARIEFF S/O LATE K ASIF, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 4. SRI A ZABAN SHARIEFF S/O LATE K ASIF, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT” 2ND CROSS, NAGARAJA GUPTA LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 030. 5. SRI K ASLAM S/O G KHALEEL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 6. SRI K ISMAIL S/O G KHALEEL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 7. SRI K MUSTHFFA S/O G KHALEEL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R-5 TO R-7 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 5/2, 15TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU 560 030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNITHA H SINGH. ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.04.2023. PASSED ON IA NO. 1/22 IN OS NO. 25626/2019 ON THE FILE OF LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU(CCH 75), ALLOWING THE IA NO. 1/22 FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.25626/2019 is before this Court by way of the present appeal aggrieved by the impugned order and consequent judgment and decree dated 19.04.2023 passed by 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75). 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, are as under: The appellants-plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit was contested by the respondents-defendants, who not only filed the written statement, but also application I.A.No.1/2022 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. Thereafter, the appellants-plaintiffs filed an application I.A.No.2/2022 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. By the impugned common order dated 19.04.2023, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.2/2022 filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 amendment of the plaint and also allowed I.A.No.1/2022 filed by respondents-defendants for rejection of the plaint and accordingly, proceeded to reject the plaint and dismissed the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed in the present petition. 3. The short point that arises for consideration in the appeal are: i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A.No.2/2022 filed by appellants-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC? ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing I.A.No.1/2022 filed by respondents – defendants and thereby rejecting the plaint and consequently dismissing the suit? 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. Regarding Point No.(i): 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate while considering I.A.No.2/2022 filed by appellant-plaintiff for amendment of plaint, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that amendment - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 cannot be allowed without appreciating the well settled principle of law governing amendment of pleadings as enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another – 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, Dinesh Goyal Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) – AIR 2024 SC 4779, Ganesh Prasad Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and ors – (2023) 6 SCR 893 and L.C.Hanumathappa Vs. H.B.Shivakumar – (2016) 1 SCC 332. 6. In this context, a perusal of the proposed amendment sought for will indicate that by way of the proposed amendment, appellant-plaintiff merely seeks amendment of the prayer column as hereunder: “In prayer (a)”: Delete the words – “are jointly entitled for Occupancy Certificate and Occupancy Rights” And in its place mention – “are Joint-Tenants and are entitled to their respective Share in the Suit Schedule Property”. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid amendment will indicate that the proposed amendment was essential for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in prayer as borne out from the material - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 on record. In addition thereto, the proposed amendment, if allowed, does not in any way change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action and since the respondent-defendant would have liberty to file additional written statement, no prejudice would be caused if proposed amendment were to be allowed by directing that the same shall not to relate back to the date of suit but shall be reckoned from the date of filing amendment application dated 12.10.2022 and by keeping open the question/issue regarding limitation to be decided along with other issues in the suit as held in L.C.Hanumanthappa’s case (supra). 8. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court fell in error in rejecting the application I.A.No.2/2022 by passing the impugned order which deserves to be set aside. Accordingly point No.(i) is answered in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs. Regarding Point No.(ii) 9. The next point that arises for consideration is as to whether the application filed by respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, warrants interference in the present appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 10. In this context, it is relevant to state that pursuant to the aforesaid finding recorded by me by setting aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to Trial Court rejecting I.A.No.2/2022 filed by appellants-plaintiffs seeking amendment of plaint, rejection of the original plaint as sought for the by respondents-defendants in I.A.No.1/2022, no longer subsists and I.A.No.1/2022 filed by respondents – defendants seeking rejection of the original plaint, would also not survive for consideration and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint would necessarily have to be set aside. 11. It is also pertinent to note that the various contentions urged by respondent- defendants in application I.A.No.1/2022 seeking rejection of plaint would involve contentious issues and disputed questions of fact and law that arise for consideration only after full fledged trial before the Trial Court and consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits on the rival contentions and leaving open all defences to be urged by the defendants before the Trial Court, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this appeal by setting aside the impugned order insofar as it pertains to allowing I.A.No.1/2022 also and thereby remit the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered negatively. 12. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree in O.S.No.25626/2019 on the file of 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.2/2022 filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint is hereby allowed subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit and the same shall be reckoned from the date of filing amendment application I.A.No.2/2022, which was filed on 12.10.2022 and by keeping open the question/issue regarding limitation to be decided along with other issues in the suit. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents- defendants to file additional written statement before the Trial Court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10965 RFA No. 99 of 2024 v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including limitation are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. vi) Appellants and respondents undertake to appear before the Trial Court on 09.04.2025 without awaiting for further notice. vii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. viii) It is further directed that parties are directed to maintain status-quo in all respects in relation to the suit schedule property till disposal of the appeal before the Trial Court. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0