- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41532 WP No. 9626 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 9626 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.SHARADA, W/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 6155/2-7, BHARAT GAJARIA LAYOUT, NEAR MARUTHI LAYOUT, M.G.ROAD, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA.N.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SIDDAGANGAIAH, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O LATE VEERACHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SRI NAGARAJU, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SRI KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5. SRI KARIYANNA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41532 WP No. 9626 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 6. SRI SRINIVAS, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 7. SMT. VENKATAHANUMAKKA, D/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 8. SMT. THIMMAKKA, D/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NIMBENAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 9. SRI Y M HANUMANTHAIAH, S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 10. SMT. LATHA R, W/O Y M HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 9 AND 10 R/O NO.16, 1ST A MAIN, B.K.NAGAR, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. OMKARA MURTHY G., ADVOCATE ) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20/02/2024 PASSED IN OS NO. 421/2017 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGALA ON IA NO. 13, FILED BY THE R1 TO 8/PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER VI RULE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41532 WP No. 9626 of 2024 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING AMENDMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER This writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by defendant No.3 with a prayer to set aside the Order dated 20.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.13 in O.S.No.421/2017, by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. Heard the Learned counsel for the parties. 3. O.S.No.421/2017 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District, seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the defendants have entered appearance and thereafter filed a detailed written statement opposing the suit claim. Plaintiff subsequently filed an application in I.A.No.13 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, with a prayer to permit them to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41532 WP No. 9626 of 2024 incorporate additional prayer seeking possession of the suit schedule property, in the event, the Court comes to conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court, vide the order impugned dated 20.02.2024 has allowed the application and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in this petition submits that there is no pleading in the plaint that plaintiffs have lost possession of the suit schedule property. Initially, Plaintiffs had prayed for the relief of declaration and injunction. In the absence of any pleading stating the date on which the plaintiffs have lost possession of the suit schedule property, the period of limitation cannot be calculated. The Trial Court has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and has erred in allowing the application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41532 WP No. 9626 of 2024 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has argued in support of the order impugned. He submits that defendants themselves have specifically averred in the written statement that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. In the event, if the prayer made by the plaintiffs for declaration is granted and if it is found that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property, the decree would remain only a paper decree and therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, proposed amendment is necessary. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, a specific contention is taken that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, issues were raised by the Trial Court on the basis of the rival pleading and immediately thereafter, I.A.No.13 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs with a prayer to permit them to incorporate additional prayer - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41532 WP No. 9626 of 2024 seeking the relief of possession of the suit schedule property, in the event, the Court comes to conclusion that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS VS MANOHAR SINGH & ANOTHER - (2006) 6 SCC 498, has held that courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side. 8. In the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1128 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters for the Courts to follow while considering the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and it has been held in the said case that, while dealing with the prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41532 WP No. 9626 of 2024 a hyper technical approach and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. In the said case, it is also held that the prayer made for amendment should be normally allowed, if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, and the party seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the parties which confers a right on the other side. 9. The proposed amendment in no way changes the nature of the suit and on the other hand, an additional prayer is sought on behalf of the plaintiffs and it is always open for the defendants to file additional written statement opposing the additional prayer made on behalf of the plaintiffs and raise the defence that is available to them. It is trite that at the time of considering an application under Order VI Rule 17, the courts are not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41532 WP No. 9626 of 2024 supposed to delve into the merits of the case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.13 and therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. According the writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending I.A's, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14