- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24516 W.P. No.36773/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.36773/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. B.K. NANDAKUMARI W/O SRI. N.C. YOGANANDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NADUVANAHALLI VILLAGE GONITUMKUR POST TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DIST PRESENTLY AT NO.24, 2ND CROSS BABUSABPALYA, BANGALORE-560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.Z.A. KHURESHI, ADV.,) AND: 1. MR. R. PADMANABHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.651, VIJAYA BANK COLONY DODDABANASAWADI BANGALORE-560 043. 2. MR. P. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.13, BRINDAVAN NAGAR PALAVANTHANGAL, CHENNAI-600 114. 3. MRS. S. PADMAPRIYA W/O MR. D. RAGHU JAGANNATHAN D/O SRI. P. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN R/AT NO.5250, BRODIE GROVE COLORADO, USA AIP 80919. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DESHRAJ, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24516 W.P. No.36773/2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON I.A.NO.2/16 IN O.S.NO.5806/2012 BY THE COURT OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH.NO.40) DATED 16.07.2019 AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.2/16 AT ANNEXURE-C FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.5806/2012 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.2/16 filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.5806/2012 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.S.Z.A.Khureshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. It is submitted that later on, an application was filed to amend the plaint seeking additional prayer of declaration which was rejected incorrectly by the Trial Court on the ground that the application was filed after the commencement of the trial and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24516 W.P. No.36773/2019 petitioner failed to show due diligence. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know that the daughter of defendant No.2 was claiming right over the property and therefore, the prayer for declaration was sought which is consequential to the main relief. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Deshraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the application for amendment cannot be allowed as the trial in the case has commenced. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed this application to drag on the proceedings which has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24516 W.P. No.36773/2019 6. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.5806/2012 against the respondents herein for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. In the written statement, respondent Nos.1 and 2 vaguely averred that Smt.S.Padmapriya, daughter of the respondent No.2 is the owner of the property. However, no particulars were placed. The records indicate that the petitioner filed an application to implead the respondent No.3 which was allowed by the Trial Court considering the fact that the respondent No.3 is the title holder of the property. In the examination-in-chief of DW-1 also, there is no mention with regard to the details of the sale deed and when the said sale deed was marked as Ex.D4, the petitioner came to know about the particulars of the sale deed. Hence, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and sought for amendment of the plaint. In my considered view, there is no delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint seeking for additional prayer of declaration of title. Immediately on marking Ex.D4, the petitioner filed an application seeking for amendment. The question of due - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24516 W.P. No.36773/2019 diligence in the case on hand would not arise and the application is filed without any delay. The records indicate that in the cross-examination of DW.1, the sale deed dated 02.12.2004 at Ex.D4 was produced. Hence, the question of delay in filing the application as contended by the other side has no merit. 7. The Trial Court failed to consider that the respondent No.3 has been allowed to be impleaded in the suit on the ground that she is the title holder of the property in question. However, it has rejected the application seeking for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the additional prayer seeking declaration that such a sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application. No prejudice would be caused to the other side by allowing the application for amendment. It is always open for the defendants to file the additional written statement, if so advised. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24516 W.P. No.36773/2019 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 16.07.2019 passed on I.A.No.2/16 in O.S.No.5806/2012 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. I.A.No.2/16 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall file the amended plaint within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28