- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1532 WP No. 10934 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10934 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. K R SHASHI W/O SRI MADHUSUDHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO 152, 55 CAVUERY LAYOUT,THAVAREKERE MAIN JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G K SHIVA PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. N ASHA W/O SRI SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO 90A, RING ROAD NAGAWARA, BANGALORE 560077 AND ALSO AT NO 45/A, CHALUKYA LAYOUT NEAR RING ROAD JUNCTION ARABIC COLLEGE POST BANGALORE 560045 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. Y.P. VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS 25868/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1532 WP No. 10934 of 2024 UNIT BANGALORE (CCH 58).2) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/03/2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 1/2023 IN OS 25868/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT BANGALORE (CCH 58) AT ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION 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 H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the LVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.25868/2020, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the said application. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction. After issuance of suit summons, the defendant has appeared through counsel and filed written statement. On the basis of the same, the Trial Court has framed issues. The parties have adduced evidence and thereafter, the matter has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1532 WP No. 10934 of 2024 been posed for arguments. At this stage, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1/2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment seeking relief of declaration and possession. The Trial Court, by impugned order has dismissed the said application on the ground of delay in filing the application. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has contended that after the plaintiff has filed the suit, defendant has filed written statement denying the title of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed I.A.1/2023 for amendment of plaint seeking relief of declaration and possession. He further contended that the petitioner will not adduce any evidence either oral and documentary on the fresh reliefs sought to be amended. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.1049/2024 disposed of on 05.04.2024. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has contended that the suit is filed for bare injunction. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1532 WP No. 10934 of 2024 After service of suit summons, the defendant has filed the written statement on 18.08.2020. Even after lapse of 3 years, the plaintiff has not filed any application for amendment. When the matter came to be posted for arguments, the plaintiff has filed the application i.e., I.A.No.1/2023 for amendment only in order to drag the matter. At this stage, the application filed by the plaintiff cannot be entertained. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr. Vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi & Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 1119. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 6. The plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction. After the defendant has filed the written statement denying the title, the plaintiff has filed the application for amendment of plaint. There is delay in filing the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1532 WP No. 10934 of 2024 application. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of filing another suit, he has filed the application for amendment of plaint in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He has undertaken that the plaintiff will not adduce any further evidence either oral or documentary on the fresh releifs to be amended. 8. Under the circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the application is liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. However, the delay or inaction on the part of the plaintiff can be suitably met with by imposing exemplary cost payable to the defendant. 9. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1532 WP No. 10934 of 2024 b) The order dated order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the LVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.25868/2020 is set aside. c) I.A.No.1/2023 filed by plaintiff is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the defendant on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. Payment of cost is a condition precedent. d) It is made clear that the plaintiff is not permitted to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary on the fresh relief sought to be amended to the plaint. e) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86