- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12351 WP No. 44870 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 44870 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) SRI E V DINESH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S USHA G. W/O LATE E.V. DINESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.27, SKT LAYOUT, DODDABOMASANDRA VIDHYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE - 560 097. ADARSH E.D., S/O LATE E.V. DINESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.27, SKT LAYOUT DODDABOMASANDRA VIDHYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 097. ATHIRA E.D., D/O LATE E.V. DINESH AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS R/AT NO.27, SKT LAYOUT DODDABOMASANDRA VIDHYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 097. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12351 WP No. 44870 of 2016 (BY SRI. JOSE SEBASTIAN.,ADVOCATE FOR P1(a) TO (P1(c)) AND: 1. 1(a) 1(b) SMT DAMAYANTHI BAI W/O LELADHARACHAND HIRJICHAND REKHACHUHAN W/O JASWANTH KANTHILALCHUHAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT S.NO.52/2/1/1/1/2,52/1/1/2 FLAT NO.201, A WING KIRTO AVENUE BUILDING NEAR PUNE MUMBAI HIGHWAY PUNE CITY, PUNE MAHARASHTRA - 411 01. ALSO R/AT C/O ARUN PARMAR NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD VENKATACHARI NAGAR, RAILMENS COLONY RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE -562 094. JYOTI CHAUHAN W/O DINESH CHAUHAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT L31, ASHOK VIHAR COLONY PHASE II, PAHRIYA VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH - 221 007. ALSO R/AT C/O ARUN PARMAR NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD VENKATACHARI NAGAR, RAILMENS COLONY RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE -562 094. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12351 WP No. 44870 of 2016 1(c) HINA C. PARMAR W/O CHANDRESH V., PARMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.39, MOSHER DRIVE SAN JOSE CA - 95135-1756. ALSO R/AT C/O ARUN PARMAR NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD VENKATACHARI NAGAR, RAILMENS COLONY RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE -562 094. 2. D KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE G DEVAPPA R/AT NO.53, BASAPPA CIRCLE S R ROAD, V.V. PURAM BANGALORE-560 004. DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.01.2022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. AMRUTHA RAJ KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1(a); V/O DATED 17.01.2022 R2 IS DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 6.11.2015 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO. 6399/2005 BY THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-40) AT ANNX-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12351 WP No. 44870 of 2016 ORAL ORDER This petition is by the petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2015 passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 by the plaintiff in O.S.No.6399/ 2005 pending consideration on the file of Additional City Civil And Session Judge, Bengaluru. By the said order the Trial Court has granted the prayer for amendment of the plaint for declaration and possession. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order submits that the amendment to the plaint is sought for after lapse of 11 years and the Trial Court without even adverting to the question of limitation has granted the prayer for amendment. 3. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submits that originally the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.09.2009 and Regular First Appeal in R.F.A.No. 1329/2009 was filed before this Court which was disposed of on 21.01.2015, in that liberty was reserved to the plaintiff to seek relief of possession, it is pursuant to such liberty reserved by this Court, amendment application was filed and the same was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12351 WP No. 44870 of 2016 allowed. As such, no irregularity or illegality can be found. Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard and perused the records. 5. This Court by order dated 21.01.2015 passed in R.F.A. No.1329/2009, which was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein at paragraph No.6 held as under: ''6. Accordingly, while enabling the plaintiffs to seek appropriate amendment insofar as recovery possession is concerned, since the suit is of the year 2005 and the relief of possession is available to him, even with regard to the law of limitation there would be no harm done if appellant is permitted to make a appropriate application seeking consequential relief of recovery of possession.'' 6. The Trial Court in the impugned order taking note of the aforesaid observation made by this Court in the said order has allowed the application, permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint. Only grievance urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant is that the Trial Court ought to have looked into the question of limitation before allowing the application for amendment. It is open to the petitioner/ dependent to urge the question of limitation by filing written - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12351 WP No. 44870 of 2016 statement and leading evidence in that regard. Amendment as such granted by the Trial Court cannot be found fault with. Petition is dismissed, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise and urge the question of limitation which the Trial Court shall consider independent of the reasons assigned in the impugned order while allowing the application. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20