- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 27535 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SANJAY BEHL, S/O BHIM SAIN BEHL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SMT. APARNA BEHL, S/O BHIM SAIN BEHL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.20, NAVYA NAGARA, BEHIND SRI. RAMAVIDYALAYA, JAKKUR, BENGALURU-64. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEK N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL S REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMANJANAIAH, S/O LT PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. SRI. RAJANNA, S/O LT PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.119, ABBIGERE P.O CHIKKABANAVARA, YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-90. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KN NITISH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S. 8180/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU 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 C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 calling in question the order dated 19.06.2018 passed in OS.No.8180/2013 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru1 whereunder IA.No.10 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 19082 for amendment has been allowed. 2. The necessary facts in a nutshell leading to the present writ petition are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to declare that two General Power of Attorneys dated 13.02.1992 and two affidavits pertaining to the suit schedule-B properties are not binding on the plaintiffs and 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘Trial Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred as to ‘CPC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 for injunction. The defendants filed written statement and contested the suit. Issues were framed and evidence has been adduced by both the parties. At the stage of arguments the plaintiffs filed IA.No.10 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment seeking to insert two prayers i.e., prayer-(aa) for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule-A property and prayer- (bb) for possession of the suit schedule-B property. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their objections to the said application. The Trial Court vide order dated 19.06.2018 allowed the said applications with cost of `1,000/-. Being aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present writ petition. 3. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri.Vivek.N for learned counsel Sri. Rahul S Reddy, appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri. KN Nitish appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the order of the Trial Court contends that in the written - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 statement the petitioners/defendants have taken a specific contention that they are in possession of the properties. Hence, it is contended that the application for amendment is filed belatedly. It is further contended that the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the application for amendment. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the first amendment sought for with regard to the prayer for declaration is primarily covered by the relief for declaration sought for in the suit. With regard to the second relief for possession, it is contended that the said relief is within the time stipulated under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 19633. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reliefs sought in the plaint are with regard to the suit schedule-B properties and the reliefs for declaration sought for vide the amendment application is in respect of the suit schedule-A property and that a specific plea has been taken by the defendants with respect to the suit schedule-A 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 property, that apart from two sites that are described in the schedule-B properties, various other sites have been formed and has been sold to various other purchasers. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the defendants are concerned with the suit schedule-B properties and should have no objection for the plaintiffs seeking for declaration with respect to suit schedule-A property. 8. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. 9. The question that arises for consideration is ‘Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing IA.No.10?’ 10. It is forthcoming that the Trial Court while considering IA.No.10 has recorded a finding that the application would not change the nature of the suit and vide the amendment only prayer column is sought to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 amended. Hence, it is held that the application is liable to be allowed on cost. 11. It is relevant to note here that item Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule-B properties are that two sites measuring 31 feet X 49 feet and 40 feet X 30 feet respectively. It is not in dispute that that suit schedule-B properties forms a portion of suit schedule-A property and there is remaining portion of the property which constituted the suit schedule-A property, which is not the subject matter of the General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.1992 and two affidavits in respect of which the relief has been sought in the suit. It is further not in dispute that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are asserting right, title and interest in respect to the suit schedule-B property and not the remaining portion of the suit schedule-A properties. 12. The defendants at para No.10 of the written statement has taken a specific contention that father of the plaintiffs formed a layout in the entire land and sold several sites to several persons. It is clear from the aforementioned, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 that the prayer-(a) made in the plaint pertains to the suit schedule-B properties. Hence, the prayer-(aa) sought vide IA.No.10, if it is permitted to encompass the suit schedule-A property will change the nature of the suit. Hence, it is just and proper that prayer-(aa) sought for in IA.No.10 with regard to the declaration of title of the plaintiffs is restricted to the suit schedule-B properties. 13. With regard to the prayer-(bb) for possession of the suit schedule-B properties, the plaintiff No.2 in the affidavit filed in support of IA.No.10 has deposed that in the event the Court were to record a finding that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit schedule-B properties, the relief for possession is sought. It is further deposed that the relief has been sought on the advice of the their counsel which they did not have prior to filing the application. 14. The suit is filed on 07.11.2013. IA.No.10 seeking inter-alia, the relief for possession is filed on 17.04.2018. Article 64 of the Act of 63 stipulates that the period of limitation for seeking for possession is twelve years. Hence, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 it is clear that the relief for possession sought for vide with prayer-(bb) vide IA.No.10 is within the period of limitation. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in contending that the relief for possession could have been sought for at an earlier stage and the application has been filed when the suit was posted for arguments. In that regard the Trial Court is justified in recording a finding that the amendment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that the ends of justice would be met if the application is allowed with heavy cost. However, The Trial Court has allowed the application with cost of `1,000/-. The said cost imposed by the Trial Court is required to be enhanced. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative. 16. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is partly allowed by modifying the order dated 19.06.018 passed on IA.No.10 in OS.No.8180/2013 to stipulate that the application would be allowed on cost of `10,000/- and subject to the further condition that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19696 WP No. 27535 of 2018 prayer-(aa) sought vide IA.No.10 for declaration of title would be limited to suit schedule-B properties. The order of the Trial Court in all other respects remain unaltered. The plaintiffs shall pay/ deposit the cost on or before the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. 17. The Trial Court shall proceed further in the suit in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made herein. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43