- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7757 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI GUNDLAGUTTA PRADEEP REDDY S/O SRI G JANARDHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT 2-282-2-3 P AND T COLONY, MADANPALLE ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 325. REP BY PETITIONER'S BROTHER AND GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI GUNDLAGUTTA PRASHANTH REDDY S/O SRI. G JANARDHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.101 B BLOCK SVS PATELS CALISTIO APARTMENTS TALAKAVERI LAYOUT AMRUTHALLI, BALLARY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 092 . …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN REDDY H SAWKAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JAYANTHI W/O OF SHRI M.C. MOHAN D/O SRI BALASUBRAMANYAM RESIDING AT Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 NO.892, 3RD CROSS M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 032. 2. SRI RAMESHA S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 4. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 5. SRI MANJU S/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 6. SRI MURTHY S/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 7. SMT ASHWATHAMMA W/O SRI. VENKATESHAPPA D/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 8. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 9. MS MALA D/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 10. MASTER SHEKAR S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 11. KUM SHYLA D/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS NOS. 10 AND 11 ARE SINCE MINORS THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. MUNIYAPPA 12. SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 13. MR RAKESH S/O SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 14. MS. CHAITRA D/O SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 15. MASTER GUNDA S/O SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS SINCE MINOR HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI GOVINDARAJU 16. SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 17. SMT NETHRAVATHI D/O SRI. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 18. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O SRI APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 19. SMT SARASWATHAMMA D/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 20. SRI LOKESH S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 21. MS LAKSHMI D/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 22. MS MAMATHA D/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS SL. NOS. 2 TO 22 ARE RESIDING AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE NAGAVARA DHAKALE ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU - 560 045. 23. MR M.C. MOHAN S/O MR. MURUGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.892, 3RD CROSS M C LAYOUT - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040. 24. MURALI P S/O G V PANISHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.2632 11TH MAIN ROAD 2ND STAGE E BLOCK RAJAJINGAR BENGALURU - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 17.04.2024 NOTICE TO R1 TO R23 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.09.2024 NOTICE TO R24 STANDS WAIVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.7311/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDE BENGLAURU (CCH-19) QUASH ANNEXURE-A IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.3.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.9 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-19) IN O.S.NO.7311/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 ORAL ORDER This petition is by the plaintiff in O.S. No.7311/2018 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ['the civil Court']. The civil Court by the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 [Annexure-A] has rejected the petitioner's application [I.A. No.9] under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC]. The civil Court has reasoned thus to reject the petitioner's application. "Upon consideration of the above facts, it is seen that the above application was filed on 12.10.2020, wherein the case was filed in the year 2018 and the amendment sought to be produced pertaining to the alleged sale deed dated 7.7.2017, which is prior to the filing of the suit. No just cause has been made by the plaintiff for the delay in filing the above application. As to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC., which clearly mandates that, amendment to be allowed only on just causes." - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 2. The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S. No.7311/2018 asserting ownership of the site in No.417 in different survey numbers of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk impugning the Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 insofar as it relates to his property and for permanent injunction. The petitioner has initially filed this suit only against the first to twenty-third respondents asserting that the first respondent could not have executed the impugned Gift Deed in favour of the other respondents. 3. The petitioner has detailed in the plaint the circumstances which according to him entitles him to the prayer as sought for. However, the twenty- fourth respondent has impleaded himself in the suit asserting that he has purchased an extent of 10 guntas in one of the subject survey numbers from one of the other defendants [the other respondents]. It is after this impleadment, the petitioner has filed the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 present application for amendment to impugn the sale deed claimed by the twenty-fourth respondent. The petitioner's specific case is that he was not aware of the sale deed in favour of the twenty fourth respondent until the application for impleadment is filed. 4. Sri Mohan Reddy H Sawkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the pleadings are complete even by the twenty-fourth respondent, but Issues are yet to be framed. The merits of the civil Court's reasoning as against the impugned order is examined in all the circumstances as aforesaid and the settled law that the Courts must lean in favour of the amendments that would enable adjudication of the real dispute especially when such amendment is prior to the commencement of the evidence. 5. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner for the subject property is by a Co-operative Society, but the impugned Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 the sale deed in favour of the twenty-fourth respondent are because of certain proceedings which are detailed in the plaint. The twenty-fourth respondent asserts that a decree in favour of the petitioner could jeopardize his interest. If the civil Court has to decide on the merits of the Gift Deed, for complete and real adjudication, it will also have to decide on the merits of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the twenty-fourth respondent for a certain portion of one of the survey numbers that are mentioned in the plaint. 6. The petitioner’s property is in these survey numbers. If the petitioner succeeds against the Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 but does not pursue his grievance with the Sale Deed in favour of the twenty- fourth respondent, the real controversy will not be completely adjudicated. In the circumstances, the civil Court could not have rejected the application only on the ground of delay. Hence the following: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021 ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The impugned order dated 15.03.2021 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Annexure-A] is quashed allowing the application for amendment. [c] The civil Court is directed to allow the petitioner to amend the plaint with liberty to the respondents to complete their pleadings as is permissible in law in the light of this amendment. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-