- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11310 WP No. 28889 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28889 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI A N YOGANANDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O G NOMISWARAN R/AT NO. 4-2, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE-560097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARESH KUMAR JAIN J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHAIK SADIQ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI SHAIK PYARU R/AT NO. 42, M.S. PALYA NEAR S.K CONVENTION HALL YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560097. 2. SMT LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O N MUNIRAJ R/AT NO. 402, 2ND B MAIN 16TH CROSS, J.P NAGAR BANGALORE-560097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT AFSARUNNISA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHISHEK GOWDA H, ADVOCATE FOR R1) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11310 WP No. 28889 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO. 10 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU, (CCH- 19), IN OS NO. 2370/2018 DATED: 21/11/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.10 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.2370/2018, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the said application. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction. On service of suit summons, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement on 29.05.2018 and denied the title of the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. The evidence of the parties has been completed. Thereafter, the plaintiff - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11310 WP No. 28889 of 2023 filed I.A.No.10 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC on 04.02.2022 for amendment of plaint. The Trial Court, by impugned order has allowed the said application with cost of Rs.500/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by defendant No.1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 has contended that the plaintiff has filed the application for amendment of plaint after lapse of 4 years from the date of filing the written statement by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has not assigned any valid or cogent reasons for the delay in filing the application. He further contended that the prayer sought by the plaintiff by way of amendment for relief of declaration is barred by limitation. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Trial Court has erred in allowing the application. 4. The defendant No.1 has filed the written statement on 29.05.2018 and he has denied the title of the plaintiff. Thereafter, issues have been framed by the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11310 WP No. 28889 of 2023 The parties have led evidence. When the matter was posted for further arguments of DW-1, the plaintiff has filed the present application for amendment of plaint seeking the prayer for relief of declaration. 5. In respect of contention of the defendant No.1 that the prayer sought by the plaintiff for relief of declaration is barred by limitation, the said issue may be tried by the Trial Court at the time of deciding the suit and after hearing the parties. 6. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that by allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiff, it will not cause any prejudice to the rights of the defendants. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. There is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. However, the inaction or delay on the part of the plaintiff has to be met by imposing exemplary cost. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11310 WP No. 28889 of 2023 8. The plaintiff is directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant No.1 instead of Rs.500/- imposed by the Trial Court. In view of dismissal of petition, all pending I.As., if any, are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26