- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48475 WP No. 12749 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 12749 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. G.S. UMA W/O LATE G.A. SHANKARAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2. SMT. SIREESHA RAJU D/O LATE G.S. SHANKAR MURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 3. G.S. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE G.A. SHANKARMUTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.4 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVANAGAR, MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A. KULKARNI, ADV.,) AND: SRI JAYARAM AGE 50 YEARS, S/O KALLAPA R/O 175 KHATA NO.633 WARD NO.69 MOOKANBIKA NILAYA 4TH B CROSS ROAD PREETHINAGAR LAGGERE NEAR SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE SCHOOL BENGALURU - 58. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV., A/W SRI NAGAMANJU K.S., ADV.,) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48475 WP No. 12749 of 2021 THE O.S.4507/2017QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 28.1.2020 PASSED BY THE LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CCH 68 IN AS PER ANNEXURE-S. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant in O.S.No.4507 of 2017 is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.01.2020 passed on I.ANo.III in OS No.4507 of 2017 by the Court of LXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein has filed O.S.No.4507 of 2017 before the jurisdictional civil Court at Bengaluru seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of property bearing Site No. 27 formed in Survey No.4 of Laggere Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring 30 x 40 feet. Defendants in O.S.No.4507 of 2017 have filed written statement opposing the suit claim. I.A.No.III was filed in OS No.4507 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48475 WP No. 12749 of 2021 CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint in O.S.No.4507 of 2017 by incorporating proposed paragraph No.6(a) to 6(d) immediately after paragraph No.6 in the plaint and also by incorporating additional prayer No.2(a) immediately after prayer No.2 in the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing objection. The trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed I.A.No.III and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the decree passed in O.S.No.3574 of 2001 has been confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.1521 of 2012. Liberty granted to the respondent in RFA No.1521 of 2012 is to file a fresh suit in respect of Site No.34 which is totally a different property and by playing mischief, O.S.No.4507 of 2017 is filed in respect of Site No.27 for which there is already a decree of possession passed against the respondent herein in O.S.No.3574 of 2001. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48475 WP No. 12749 of 2021 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit and Courts in normal circumstances should be liberal in allowing the amendment application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, the petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.3574 of 2001 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru against the respondent herein seeking the decree of possession in respect of Site No.27 formed in Survey No.4 of Laggere Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and the said suit was decreed on 22.06.2012. The said judgment and decree has been confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.1521 of 2012, which was dismissed on 14.06.2017. 7. It is relevant to take note here that this Court while dismissing RFA No.1521 of 2012, taking note of the contention urged on behalf of the respondent herein that he was claiming right only over Site No.34 formed in Survey No.4 of Laggere Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48475 WP No. 12749 of 2021 granted liberty to him to file a fresh suit in respect of Site No.34, making it very clear that Site No.27 and Site No.34 are two different properties. In spite of the same, the respondent herein had filed O.S.No.4507 of 2017 before the jurisdictional civil Court at Bengaluru for declaration of his title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of Site No.27 which was subject matter of O.S.No.3574 of 2001 in which there was a decree passed against him directing him to handover possession of Site No.27 in favour of the petitioners here. The said judgment and decree of possession has attained finality. 8. In O.S.No.4507 of 2017, I.A.No.III is filed on behalf of the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC with the prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating proposed paragraph No.6(a) to 6(d) immediately after paragraph No.6 and also by incorporating additional prayer No.2(a) immediately after prayer No.2. 9. A reading of the proposed amendment would clearly go to show that, the proposed amendment is to seek a declaration that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48475 WP No. 12749 of 2021 3574 of 2001 is not binding on the plaintiffs since there is no declaration of title of the defendant. It is relevant to note here that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3574 of 2001 has attained finality and RFA No.1521 of 2012 filed against decree passed in O.S.No.3574 of 2001 has been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and in the said appeal petitioners had contended before this Court that he was claiming right, title and interest over Site No.34 and not Site No.27 and these two properties are totally two different properties. This aspect of the matter is found in the operative portion of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.1521 of 2012. In spite of the same, mischievously the respondent herein has filed O.S.No.4507 of 2017 seeking a decree of declaration of the title in respect of the very same property which was subject matter of O.S.No.3574 of 2001 and in the said suit he has now filed an application seeking to incorporate additional prayer to declare that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3574 of 2001 is not binding on him. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48475 WP No. 12749 of 2021 10. It is relevant to note here that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3574 of 2001 has been confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.1521 of 2012 and the petitioner who is a party to the said appeal cannot be permitted to seek a declaration in another suit that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3574 of 2001 is not binding on him. Moreover, liberty was granted by this Court in RFA No.1521 of 2012 to the respondent herein to file a fresh suit in respect of Site No.34 and not in respect of Site No.27. In spite of the same, a fresh suit has been filed in respect of Site No.27 for which there is already a decree granted in O.S.No.3574 of 2001. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in allowing the amendment application which was filed on behalf of the respondent herein in O.S.No.4507 of 2017. 11. Accordingly the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Court of LXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48475 WP No. 12749 of 2021 in O.S.No.4507 of 2017 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.III stands dismissed. (iii) Since the suit is of the year 2017, the trial Court shall make all efforts to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS