- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:619 WP No. 44773 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 44773 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O LATE ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAKESHAVA NILAYA, 14TH MAIN ROAD, TEACHERS COLONY MADDUR TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JNANESH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G.S.ANAND S/O SRI.SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O GORAVANAHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 2. SMT.POOJITHA D/O LATE ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 3. SMT.ARPITHA D/O LATE ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 4. SMT MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESPONDENT 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT CHANNAKESHAVA NILAYA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:619 WP No. 44773 of 2019 14TH MAIN ROAD, TEACHERS COLONY, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 V/O/DATED 27/9/19 NOTICE TO R2-R4 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 05.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT IN IA IN SUIT O.S.NO.19/2004. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by orders passed on I.A. under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.19/2004 dated 05.08.2019 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Maddur, the defendant is before this court. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking the declaration, recovery of possession of the property and also sought for mandatory injunction. It is case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of land to an extent of 12½ guntas in survey No.48/6, out of which 3 guntas is encroached by the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, he had sold 9½ guntas of land and the remaining land is 3 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:619 WP No. 44773 of 2019 guntas. In this regard, earlier he has filed an I.A. seeking amendment and the said amendment was allowed. Now, he has filed the present I.A. seeking amendment with regard to the boundaries in view of the sale of 9½ guntas of land and that IA came to be allowed by the trial court by way of order impugned. The court observed that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the claim of the plaintiff. The proposed amendment will only clarify the nature and it will not change the nature of the suit and cause of action. Further, the proposed amendment is very much required for adjudication of the dispute on hand and it will not be inconsistent with the pleading of the parties. If the amendment is allowed, no hardship will be caused to the defendants and no admission will be taken away. Therefore, the trial court has allowed the amendment. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant is before this court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that at the fag end of the trial, the trial court ought not to have allowed an application. It virtually amounts to taking away certain valuable rights accrued in favour of the defendant and also the certain admissions already made by the plaintiff. It - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:619 WP No. 44773 of 2019 is submitted that after the commencement of the trial, if the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint, he has to specifically state about due diligence, whereas in this case, no such averments are made. In spite of that, the court has allowed the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that by way of the amendment, the plaintiff is not putting forth any new case nor he is trying to take away the defence or improve his case. In fact, the amendment that is sought by him is to delete the land to an extent of 9½ guntas of land is already allowed by the court and once that is allowed, the boundaries of land should be altered, amended as per the same which was not done earlier. When an application is filed by them, the court had rightly allowed the application and no grounds are made out seeking interference with the well- considered order passed by the court. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. When an application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC after commencement of the trial, burden lies on the party to satisfy the court that in spite of due diligence, they could not bring the amendment to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:619 WP No. 44773 of 2019 notice of the court. Then the court also has to look at whether any prejudice is caused to the defendant and also whether by virtue of this amendment, the plaintiff is putting forth any inconsistent pleas or is trying to fill up the latches by this amendment. In this case, already the earlier amendment is allowed and wherein it is stated that he is not the owner of 12½ guntas of land, as he has sold 9½ guntas and he is the owner of only an extent 3 guntas of land. In that factual backdrop, unless and until this amendment is allowed, it would be difficult for the court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In that view of the matter, this court finds no reason to interfere. 6.Accordingly the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. If the plaintiff is permitted to adduce any further evidence, the defendant is at liberty to cross- examine him. iii. This is a suit of the year 2004 pending from the last 20 years, the court shall dispose of the same as - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:619 WP No. 44773 of 2019 expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months. iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49