- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 23231 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT ALPHONSE MARY D/O LATE RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NILAYA NEAR CHURCH, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076. 2. SMT PHILOMINA BAI D/O LATE RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NILAYA NEAR CHURCH, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076. 3. SMT BRIDGIT BAI D/O LATE RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NILAYA NEAR CHURCH, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076. 4. SRI ELIZABETH RANI D/O LATE RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NILAYA Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 NEAR CHURCH, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076. 5. SMT PUSHPA D/O LATE RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NILAY NEAR CHURCH, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076. 6. SRI ANTHONY RAJ D/O LATE RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANTHI NILAY NEAR CHURCH, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S. KANTHA W/O NARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT CA SITE NO.40 1ST PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE-560 078. 2. SMT NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE ANANTHARAJU MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.165/16, LAXMI VENKATESWARA NILAYA NEAR KALYAN MAGNAM IIM POST, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. 3. SMT VANAJAKSHI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 D/O LATE ANANTHARAJU MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.165/16, LAXMI VENKATESWARA NILAYA NEAR KALYAN MAGNAM IIM POST, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. 4. SMT KANTHA D/O LATE ANANTHARAJU MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.165/16, LAXMI VENKATESWARA NILAYA NEAR KALYAN MANGNAM IIM POST, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. 5. SRI MOHAN RAJU S/O LATE ANANTHARAJU MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.165/16, LAXMI VENKATESWARA NILAYA NEAR KALYAN MANGNAM IIM POST, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. 6. SMT KALYANI D/O LATE ANANTHARAJU MAJOR BY AGE RESIDING AT NO.165/16 LAXMI VENKATESWARA NILAYA NEAR KALYAN MANGNAM IIM POST, DORESANIPALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. 7. SRI JANARDHAN RAJU S/O LATE NARAYANA RAJU @ CHINNABBAIAH - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.510, 5TH CROSS 6TH MAIN, J P NAGAR III PHASE BANGALORE-560 078. 8. SMT PREMA RAJU W/O LATE C. RAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1395 13TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS BTM LAYOUT II STAGE BANGALORE-560 076. 9. SRI SUNIL RAJU S/O LATE C. RAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1395 13TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS BTM LAYOUT II STAGE BANGALORE-560 076. 10. SRI SANJAY RAJU S/O LATE C RAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1395, 13TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 076. 11. SMT MARY PHILOMINA D/O LATE PILLANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS C/O ST ANTHONY ENTERPRISES NO.001, MAHAVEER CLASSIC APARTMENTS SAHYADRI LAYOIUT PANDURANGA NAGAR BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. 12. SMT PHILOMINA W/O LATE T A RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 RESIDING AT DORESANI PALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. 13. SRI ANANDA RAJU S/O LATE ANANDA RAO AGED ABOUT 75 YARS C/O KODANDA REDDY BUILDING, AREKERE VILLAGE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. 14. SMT A SUSHEELA BAI W/O JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT DORESANI PALYA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BILEKAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560 076. 15. MRS MERI RITA W/O DASS AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26 DORESANIPALYA VILLAGE BILEKAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK HOLLA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R10; R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 29.11.2019 NOTICE TO R11, R12, R14 AND R15 HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 29.11.2019 NOTICE TO R13 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2019 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.923/2009 ON I.A.NO.XIII FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908 REJECTING THE INTERLOCUTORY - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 APPLICATIONS i.e., I.A.NO.XIII (ANNX-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO.XIII FILED BY PETITIONERS (PLAINTIFFS) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioners who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.923/2009 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the trial Court rejecting their application in I.A.No.13 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC. 2. Petitioners originally have filed the above suit for declaration of their title and for relief of permanent injunction. Specific case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners in possession of the suit property, which is denied by the respondents/ defendants who in turn claimed to be the owners in possession of suit property. 3. Things stood thus petitioners / plaintiffs filed the above application in I.A.No.XIII, alleging that they have been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 dispossessed by the respondents/defendants during the month of between the months of October 2015 and January 2019. 4. The Trial Court has rejected the said application solely on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioners have not specifically given the dates on which they claimed to have been dispossessed from the suit property. It is this order which is put to question in this matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and also taking this Court through to the averments made in the application submits that the plaintiffs in the above application for amendment have specifically pleaded that they have been dispossessed from the suit property by the respondents who have put up the construction over the same in the month of October 2015. When this specific averment is made in the application for amendment, the Trial Court could not have dismissed application for petitioners not specifically mentioned the date. Hence he submit the trial court has erred in rejected the application. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in unison submit that they had taken specific contention in the written statement of they being in possession of the property and the plaintiff being aware of the said averment has filed the present application at a belated stage only with oblique intent of protracting the matter. They submit suit is of the year 2009 and the plaintiffs have been filing one or the other applications only to keep the litigation alive to cause prejudice to the respondents. 7. Learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 6 further submit that the property being claimed by the petitioner is different from the property being claimed by the respondent 4 to 6. As such he submits the application filed for amendment may not be made applicable to the case of the respondents. 8. Heard perusal records. 9. Admittedly petitioners/ plaintiffs had originally sought for relief of declaration and injunction. It is their case by subsequent events they have been dispossessed. In that it is alleged that the defendants have put up construction has started putting up construction over the property claimed by the petitioner during the month of October 2015 and January - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11482 WP No. 23231 of 2019 2019. When the month and year is specifically mentioned in the application, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners the Trial Court could not have rejected the same merely for want of mentioning of specific dates. This in any case is a matter of evidence. The application in I.A.No.XIII therefore is required to be allowed and the reasons assigned the trial court is required to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioners are permitted to amendment the plaint. Respondents are at liberty to file additional written statement if any, and if so adviced. Since the suit is pending consideration from the year 2009 the trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear parties shall not unnecessarily seek adjournments in the matter and shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of suit. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18