- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23419 W.P. No.51284/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.51284/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RENUKA P ALIAS KRISHNA KUMARI D/O LATE PURUSHOTHAM W/O LATE SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O NO. 127, OLD MADRAS ROAD HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560 008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV.,) AND: 1. MOWNANDA GURUSWAMIGAL MUTT WELFARE TRUST NO.126/1, OLD NO.73 OLD MADRAS ROAD, HALASURU BENGALURU - 560008 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI. V. RAMASWAMY IYER. 2. SHRI. SUGUMAR [DELETED AS PER ORDER DTD:11.06.2025] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA S, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:11.06.2025 R2 DELETED) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7TH JUNE 2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH NO.63, BANGALORE CITY, IN O.S.NO.1786/2017 PASSED ON THE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23419 W.P. No.51284/2019 APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF THE CPC I.E., IA NO.6 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND REJECT IA NO.6 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari setting-aside the impugned order dated 17th June 2019 passed by the learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH No.63, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.1786/2017 passed on the application filed by respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC i.e., I.A.No.6 vide Annexure-A and reject IA No.6 filed by the respondent." 2. Sri.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner. In the said suit, the respondent No.1 filed an application to implead certain other persons and also an application in I.A.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the plaint and the same was adjourned for filing objections. However, the Trial Court, on 17.06.2019 recorded correctly that the petitioner has no objection to allow the said application and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23419 W.P. No.51284/2019 proceeded to allow the same. It is submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant was not present on 17.06.2019. Hence, an opportunity be provided to the petitioner-defendant to file objections to the application in I.A.No.6 and thereafter, direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the said application on merits. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Vivekananda S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner was very much present and gave his consent to allow the said application for amendment. Even otherwise also, the amendment sought is at the pre-trail stage. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is nothing but an elaboration of the facts which the respondent-plaintiff intends to place before the Court and it is always open for the petitioner to file an additional written statement, if so advised. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23419 W.P. No.51284/2019 material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 5. The respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.1786/2017 against the petitioner herein for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was presented on 10.03.2017. The petitioner filed written statement in the said proceedings. The respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application came to be allowed on 17.06.2019 by the Trial Court by recording the consent of the petitioner which is now disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has given his consent to allow the said application or not, is not necessary to be gone into in the present proceedings. The application seeking for amendment is filed at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings and no prejudice would be caused to the other side by allowing the said application. It is always open for the petitioner to file an additional written statement, if so advised. The proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit and it is necessary to decide the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23419 W.P. No.51284/2019 controversy between the parties. Hence, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The petitioner is granted liberty to file the additional written statement, if any, within a period of two weeks from today. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) The parties have agreed to appear before the Trial Court on 17.07.2017 and on the same day, the petitioner shall file the additional written statement, if any. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38