- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 34452 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B SHIVA KUMAR S/O BYRAPPA AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SMT VINODHA W/O B SHIVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A JUNJANAHALLI VILLAGE BUDHIKOTE HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETHAN A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K. AMARNATH S/O KRIHSNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A NAGARAKUNTE KATARIPALYA KOLAR KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEENKUMAR S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (1) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR ORDERS BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL., CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BANGARPET PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 IN O.S. NO.260/2018, (II) ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PER I.A.NO.10 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Learned counsel files vakalath on behalf of the caveator respondent and the same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveator respondent. 3. This petition is filed by the defendants in the Original Suit No.260/2018. 4. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court for the sake of brevity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 5. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.11.2016. The defendants appeared before the Court, filed the statement and thereafter, on the basis of the statement, the points came to be framed by the Trial Court. One of the point framed by the Trial Court i.e. point No.1 reads as under; "1. Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties?" 6. After recording of evidence of the plaintiff, the defendants have cross examined three witnesses of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants adduced their evidence. DW1 got marked several documents on his behalf including the document dated 30.01.2016 alleged to be a loan agreement, pursuant to which the defendant - DW1 has been cross examined fully by the plaintiff and the matter was posted for arguments. The arguments have been addressed by the parties and presently, it is posted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 for judgment on 02.12.2025. When the matter was posted for arguments of the defendants, the application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to incorporate one paragraph which is Paragraph 8(a) which reads as under; ”8(a). The defendants submit that the 1" defendant used to avail financial assistance from the plaintiff as and when needed and similarly on 30-01-2016 the 1" defendant availed hand loan of Rs.1,27,000/- by securing suit schedule item No.1 later on repayment of the said amount and interest, the said sale agreement has been got cancelled. The suit sale agreement dated 10.11.2016 is also similar type of money Tending transaction. Hence the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract is not maintainable and plaintiff is only entitled for recovery of the amount Rs.1,10,000/- paid under the suit sale agreement and interest at 1.5% p.m." 7. This application for amendment came to be rejected by the Trial Court by a detailed order, which is now in challenge before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the defendants that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and the Trial Court has to consider the relevancy of the amendment which is sought to be incorporated by the defendant, but, has merely dismissed the application in a mechanical manner. It is the contention of learned counsel for the defendants that there was cancellation of the sale agreement executed on 10.11.2016 requires to be incorporated by virtue of the amendment as there was no sale transaction, it was only a money lending transaction, which is forthcoming in the documents which now he is intending to produce. One of the document was already produced and marked as Ex.D1. Therefore, it is his contention that the sale agreement so alleged by the plaintiff is nothing but purely a security document for the loan and therefore, the amendment would be proper and necessary at this stage to incorporate the pleadings to defend the matter on behalf of the defendants. It is contented by learned counsel that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 amendments should be generally allowed at all stages, sofar as it does not cause injustice to the other side and he contends that by carrying out the present amendment there would be no injustice or hardship or inconvenience, so also the nature of the suit will not change by the defence so put up by the defendant. Under these circumstances, he seeks to allow the application, consequently, set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and permit the amendment to be incorporated. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff vehemently objects to these contentions and the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the defendants. He contends that the matter is now set down for pronouncement of judgment on 02.12.2025. It is contented that after completion of the arguments of both parties, the present application is filed at a belated stage with an intention to prolong and protract the proceedings. It is also contented by the learned counsel that the defendants have been protracting the proceedings, he has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 taken more than one year time to cross-examine PWs.1 and 3 and during the course of cross examination, the defendant i.e. DW1 has admitted that Ex.D1 is the loan transaction which is clearly stated at Paragraph 8, line No.6 in Ex.D1. Therefore, the same is the admission on behalf of the defendants. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff sustains the impugned order and contends that when the application is filed at a belated stage and there is a huge delay, without explaining the due diligence or the cause for delay, such application need not be allowed and should be rejected to curb such kind of tactics adopted by the defendants to prolong and protract the proceedings. It is also contented by learned counsel for the plaintiff that his very document which is now sought to be incorporated by virtue of the proposed amendment, has already been marked as Ex.D1 ie., the document dated 30.01.2016. All these pleadings have already been narrated by the defendant in his evidence and stated so in his evidence-in-chief and so also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 in the cross-examination. Under the circumstances, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent i.e. the defendants and the plaintiff respectively, it is to be seen that whether the proposed amendment that is sought by the plaintiff requires to be allowed?, whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is sustainable? and whether it requires any interference? 12. The fact remains that this application is filed on 25.09.2025. PW1 has got marked the exhibits in his favour was fully cross examined on two occasions ie., on 10.09.2025 and 19.09.2025. Thereafter, the arguments of the plaintiff was heard on 19.09.2025 and the matter was set down for arguments of the defendants on 25.09.2025. At this stage, this present application for amendment is filed by the defendants. Subsequently, orders came to be passed on the application on 23.10.2025 and it was posted - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 for arguments of the defendant which is partly done and the matter is now posted for pronouncement of judgment on 02.12.2025. With this background, it is to be seen whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court requires to be interfered. 13. Admittedly, the application for amendment is filed at a belated stage after the evidence is recorded and the matter is set down for arguments of the defendants on 25.09.2025. The Trial Court has dealt with the requirements of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and the due diligence ought to have been shown and adopted by the defendant quite well in advance as this document is not new to the defendant, he was very well aware of this document quite prior to the filing of the statement and the suit. He has also relied upon the very same document ie., 30.01.2016 in his evidence and it is marked as Ex.D1. Therefore, the question of making an amendment to the written statement by incorporating a prayer to produce this document or rely upon this document would be of no - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 consequence and would be irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the case. 14. As already such an averment is made, it is also relevant to see that the whole purpose of the amendment of the written statement is only to show that the entire transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is a loan transaction and it is not a sale agreement as contented by the learned counsel for the defendants, so also, it is the same in the amendment that is sought to be incorporated by introducing Paragraph 8(a). 15. In Paragraph No.8 of the written statement, the defendants have taken the plea with regard to, there being no transaction of sale and it is only a transaction of security and a loan which was taken by the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be now said that the defendants have not taken such a plea in the written statement warranting the amendment to be incorporated which is now sought to be done by the defendants by virtue of the application at - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 the belated stage when the matter is already completed the stage of the arguments of plaintiff and it is set down for the defendants' evidence, on which date, this present application came to be filed. 16. All these aspects have been considered by the learned Trial Judge and did not find any good reason to allow the application and has accordingly, dismissed it. 17. It is also relevant to note here that the defendants have not shown any genuine bona fide reason for not bringing this amendment at the earliest point of time. As this information of the alleged loan agreement, or the document sought to be introduced by virtue of the amendment was though pursuant to the recording of evidence, it was much prior available to the defendants and they have stated so in the written statement, so also, they have marked one of the document as Ex.D1 in his evidence. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48656 WP No. 34452 of 2025 18. Under the circumstances, the appreciation of the Trial Court on the application does not warrant interference. The Trial Court has passed a reasoned order. Hence, I pass the following; ORDER I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7