- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3240/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B. SATHISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE S.A. BABU REDDY R/AT NO.7, 7TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN BEHIND CENTRAL SILK BOARD BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESH, ADV., FOR SRI. AKASH V.T. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. GANAPATHI SANTAYYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O SANTAYYA NAIK R/AT 47/2, DIVYAPIYA NILAYA VIDHYA NURSERY ROAD LAXMISAGAR LAYOUT MAHADEVAPURA, WHITE FIELD ROAD BENGALURU-560034. 2. SMT. SUSAN RAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O SRI. T.S. RAJU R/AT NO.91/1, JIBS COTTAGE 8TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHPALYA NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560075. 3. SRI. T.S. RAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE T.V. SAMUEL R/AT NO.91/A, JIBS COTTAGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 8TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHPALYA NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560075. 4. SRI. MATHAI CHACKO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O M. CHACKO R/AT 2ND MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS ANNASANDRAPALYA EXTENSION HAL POST, BENGALURU-560017. 5. SRI. RAGHU K PANDIT AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE S. KANTHA RAJU R/AT NO.5, MATHRUSRI 2ND CROSS ROAD, 4TH MAIN ROAD CHINNAPPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BENGALURU-560037. 6. SRI. N. RAJENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O N. RAMACHANDRA RAO R/AT NO.213, AKASH NILAYA KUDLU POST, ELECTRONIC CITY POST PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560100. 7. SRI. N. RAM PRASAD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O N. RAJENDRA PRASAD R/AT NO.213, AKASH NILAYA KUDLU POST, ELECTRONIC CITY POST PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560100. 8. SMT. GOWRI SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O SRI. SUDHAKAR NAIK R/AT NO.16, SRI GOWRI NILAYA 9TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS NATARAJA LAYOUT, 7TH PHASE J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 9. SRI. SUDHAKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O SRI. KRISHNA NAIK R/AT NO.16, SRI GOWRI NILAYA 9TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS NATARAJA LAYOUT, 7TH PHASE J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. 10. SRI. T.A. THOMAS AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O LATE T.O. ALEXANDER R/AT NO.18 AND 19 ST. MARY'S NILAYA BRINDAVAN NAGAR THAVAREKERE POST BENGALURU-560029. 11. SRI. PRAVEEN THOMAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O T.A. THOMAS R/AT NO.18 AND 19 ST. MARY'S NILAYA BRINDAVAN NAGAR THAVAREKERE POST BENGALURU-560029. 12. PRESSY THOMAS @ PRESSY SUNNY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS D/O T.A. THOMAS R/AT NO.18 AND 19 ST. MARY'S NILAYA BRINDAVAN NAGAR THAVAREKERE POST BENGALURU-560029. 13. SRI. M.C. JOSE AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O SRI. H.I. CHAKKUTTY R/AT NO.20, MAKKATTAKULAM HOUSE 4TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR MADIWALA POST, BENGALURU-560068. 14. SRI. SUSAN JOSE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O SRI. M.C. JOSE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 R/AT NO.20, MAKKATTAKULAM HOUSE 4TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR MADIWALA POST, BENGALURU-560068. 15. SMT. B.M. RAMADEVI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O LATE S.A. BABU REDDY R/AT NO.7, 7TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN BEHIND CENTRAL SILK BOARD BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560068. 16. SMT. S.M. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE S.A. BABU REDDY R/AT NO.7, 7TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN BEHIND CENTRAL SILK BOARD BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560068. 17. SMT. B. DIVYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O LATE S.A. BABU REDDY W/O ABHISHEK REDDY R/AT NO.7, 77TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN BEHIND CENTRAL SILK BOARD BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV., FOR R7 SRI. N. DEVARAJ, ADV., FOR R10 TO R12 SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADV., FOR R13 AND R14 R1 TO R5, R18 AND R19 AND R15 TO R17 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:17.06.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R6 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER TO QUASH THE PART OF THE ORDER DTD.18.1.2020 PASSED BY HONBLE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (MAYO HALL UNIT) BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.25455/2018 WITH RESPECT TO REJECTION OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 SEEKING INCORPORATION OF PARA NO 9(d) AND 9(e) AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following relief: "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order to quash the part of the order dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Hon'ble XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Mayo hall Unit), Bengaluru, in O.S.No.25455/2018 with respect to rejection of the amendment application, seeking incorporation of para 9(d) and 9(e) at Annexure-A." 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Nagesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 submits that the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 has filed a suit against the respondents-defendants for permanent injunction. The Trial Court, after hearing the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 has passed an order dated 17.04.2018 directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said suit and operation of the interim order, on 23.11.2019, the respondents-defendants interfered with the possession and removed the portion of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 structure made by the petitioner-plaintiff No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 filed a police complaint which was registered as Crime No.374/2019 against the respondents-defendants. It is also submitted that some others also tried to interfere with his possession. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.3415/2018 and the Trial Court, considering the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has granted injunction, which was challenged by the respondents-defendants in M.F.A.No.1038/2019 and the said injunction order is operating in favour of the petitioner- plaintiff No.2. 4. When things stood thus, the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking to incorporate the later events in the plaint as paragraphs 9(a) to 9(f). The Trial Court allowed the said application in-part and permitted to amend paragraphs 9(a) to 9(f) but rejected the application with regard to paragraphs 9(d) and 9(e) on the ground that the application filed insofar as paragraphs 9(d) and 9(e) is concerned, is an attempt to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 overcome the application filed by the respondents-defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC as the respondents- defendants are specifically contending that in the garb of the status quo order, the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 is putting up the shed in violation of the said order. It is contended that the Trial Court has incorrectly recorded a finding that the plaintiff wanted to place certain facts on record, the said facts goes back to the filing of the suit and rejected the application. It is further contended that the application is filed at the initial stage of the proceedings. Though the matter is posted for evidence, no evidence is adduced. Hence, the application is required to be allowed as a matter of right. The proposed amendment would not alter the nature of the suit nor take away the admission of the other side or is barred by any limitation. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Sri.N.Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.10 to 12 and Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 supports the order of the Trial Court and submits that the petitioner-plaintiff No.2, taking advantage of the interim order - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 of status quo operating against him also, has taken the law into his hands and tried to construct the shed. Immediately, the respondent Nos.10 to 12 filed a police complaint and a crime was registered against him in Crime No.372/2019. It is submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 has no title over the suit schedule property nor is he in possession. The claim of the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 is that he is having the agreement of sale dated 05.12.1993 executed by Sri.Muni Reddy and others and he has filed a suit which came to be decreed. However, the execution proceedings are pending. His right over the properties is not yet conferred. He does not have any right whatsoever over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Therefore, they seek to dismiss the petition. 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.10 to 12, the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 7. The petitioner-plaintiff No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.25455/2018 for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants. In the said suit, on 17.04.2018, the Trial Court has directed the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 and the respondents-defendants not to put up any construction or to remove the existing construction or put up any new fence / compound wall or remove the existing fence / compound wall and shall not do any act which would change the nature of the property as on that day and shall maintain status quo regarding the property. Admittedly the said order is an ex parte order and the said order was time and again extended. The records indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 has also filed O.S.No.3415/2018 against some third parties alleging that they were interfering with the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 over the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 has obtained temporary injunction. Being aggrieved, those third parties in the said suit filed MFA No.1038/2019 which is pending. After all these events, the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 filed an application under Order VI Rule - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 17 of the CPC in O.S.No.25455/2018 seeking to amend the plaint by bringing the later events on record. 8. The Trial Court, considering the proposed amendment, partly allowed the application by permitting the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 to incorporate paragraphs 9(a) to 9(c) and 9(f). However, it has rejected paragraphs 9(d) and 9(e) which is the subject matter of this petition. Paragraph 9(d) of the proposed amendment is with regard to the assertion of the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 that despite the knowledge of the interim order passed by the Trial Court dated 17.04.2018 and the order in another suit and miscellaneous first appeal, the respondents-defendants and others are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 over the suit schedule properties and to that effect, he has filed a police complaint. Further in paragraph 9(e), the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 has explained that that the respondents-defendants having suffered the order of the Trial Court were trying to remove the existing sheets and fence over the suit schedule properties on 22.11.2019 and 23.11.2019. The Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the attempt of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 seeking amendment is to overcome the application filed by the respondents-defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC and the amendment goes back to the date of filing of the application. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in coming to such conclusion. It is not in dispute that the application filed by the respondents- defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is pending which is required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court on its merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-plaintiff No.2. 9. The petitioner-plaintiff No.2 is contending that the respondents-defendants are interfering with his possession in violation of the interim order in the proposed amendment. Similar contention was raised by the respondents-defendants in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. The said issue with regard to the violation of either parties is required to be gone into in the trial. Hence, in my considered view, the proposed amendment would neither change the nature of the suit nor is barred by limitation nor would it take away the admissions or the stand taken by the parties in the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 suit. Hence, the application filed at the initial stage of the proceedings that too before the commencement of trial is required to be allowed as a matter of course. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is made clear that the finding recorded by this Court is a prima facie finding to decide the lis between the parties. The same shall not be considered as a finding on the basis of the contentions urged by the parties in the suit. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.01.2020 passed on the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC rejecting the application to incorporate paragraphs 9(d) and 9(e) is set aside. Consequently, the application is allowed. The petitioner-plaintiff No.2 shall file the amended plaint. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25038 W.P. No.3240/2020 (iii) It is open for the respondents-defendants to file the additional written statement taking all the contentions on merits. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33