- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103072 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: LAXMINARAYAN GURUNATHAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SOMESHWAR ROAD, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG-582101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARANAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: GURULINGAPPA VEERAPPA TADASAD, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHAHAPURPETEH, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L.M. AKKI, ADVOCATE) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, GADAG IN O.S. NO.85/2019 ON I.A. NO.7 DATED 17-02-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. This petition is filed by the plaintiff seeking to quash the impugned order dated 17.02.2025, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Gadag, in O.S.No.85/2019 on I.A.No.7. 2. The application in I.A.No.7 came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. In the said application, the amendment was sought to add the date 07.08.2013 in the last para, in the sixth line of page No.2. This application was objected to by the respondent/defendant. On hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has not shown due diligence, despite the suit having been filed on 26.04.2019, the written statement filed on 15.10.2019, subsequently issues having been framed on 12.05.2020, and the evidence of PW1 recorded on 27.09.2021, the plaintiff did not make - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 any effort to carry out any amendment prior to the commencement of trial. Having kept quiet for all this period, when the matter reached the stage of final arguments of defendants, the application for amendment has now sprung up on the ground that there is an error and typographical mistake committed by the typist who drafted the plaint, who by oversight has not mentioned the date of the registered sale agreement. 3. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that; i. The suit is filed for specific performance of the registered agreement of sale dated 07.08.2013. The agreement of sale was mentioned in the plaint, a copy of which was produced, so also, the original registered agreement of sale has been produced and marked as Exhibit P1. ii. This agreement of sale has been denied by the defendant, mentioning the same date i.e., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 07.08.2013 in para No.7 of the written statement. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the date 07.08.2013 in the registered agreement of sale. The error is only non- mentioning of the date of the registered agreement of sale in the plaint. iii. PW1 has entered into the witness box and deposed about the registered agreement of sale, and got it marked as Exhibit P1. He has been elaborately cross-examined with regard to the registered agreement of sale being invalid, not a proper document, not an agreement of sale, and so on and so forth. iv. Therefore, the amendment sought for is only for incorporation of the date of the registered agreement of sale and nothing more than that. The petitioner/plaintiff is not inclined to lead any further evidence. He is ready and willing to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 go on with the arguments and continue the arguments. v. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order be set aside and the plaintiff be permitted to carry out the amendment and proceed further in the case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. L. M. Akki, representing the respondent/defendant, vehemently contends that the impugned order does not call for interference as it is a well-reasoned order. The Trial Court has considered all aspects with regard to amendment of the pleadings and the time when the application requires to be filed, the due diligence to be shown by the plaintiff while carrying out amendment or filing the application for amendment of the plaint. Having not exercised due diligence and filing an application at a belated stage, that is, at the fag end of the suit proceedings after a period of 6 years, it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 callous and now pointing fingers at the typist is unacceptable and cannot be believed. Therefore, nothing prevented the plaintiff from bringing this amendment at the earliest stage, before the commencement of trial. Having not done so, it is too late in the day for the plaintiff to make any such amendment, and the Trial Court is right in rejecting the said application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. Perused the records, the impugned order, and the submissions of learned counsel for both parties. 6. Apparently, it is not in dispute that the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of contract, of the agreement of sale dated 07.08.2013. The document of registered agreement of sale has been presented and marked in the evidence. It is also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 mentioned in the plaint. The defendant has replied to the said plaint averments, including mentioning the date of 07.08.2013 in Para No.7 of his written statement, however, he denies the same. 7. The plaintiff has adduced evidence as PW1, produced and got marked Exhibit P1, the registered agreement of sale (Kabja Rahit Kharidi Kararu Patra). Now, the amendment which is being sought is merely an academic purpose of completing the pleading formalities, as the document in question is already produced and marked in the evidence of PW1. The defendant has been cross-examined on this document. Therefore, there is no hide and seek with regard to the registered agreement of sale. The only mistake committed by the plaintiff is non-mentioning of the date of the registered agreement of sale, that is 07.08.2013, which the plaintiff has realized too late in the day at the time of final arguments. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 8. Merely because the plaintiff has realized his mistake at the fag end of trial, that cannot be the only reason for not permitting the plaintiff to carry out the amendment by including the date of the registered agreement of sale. 9. It would have been a different matter if the document was not produced before the court, and if the plaintiff wanted to adduce further evidence, bringing new facts to the court, or if any of the cause of action or the outcome of the prayer changed in view of the amendment that has been sought. The nature of the suit also does not change by inclusion of the date by way of an amendment. 10. Under the circumstances, though no doubt the amendment is sought at a belated stage, the purpose of carrying out the amendment and the intent of the legislature is to see that amendments sought at a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 belated stage, which changes the nature of the suit or delays the proceedings, should be curbed. 11. In the present case on hand, the amendment that is being sought is only inclusion of the date of the registered agreement of sale, that is, 07.08.2013. In my opinion, this would not change the nature of the suit or the case of the plaintiff, nor would it affect the case of the defendant, as the plaintiff is not inclined to lead any further evidence. 12. Under such circumstances, I do not find any good reason for the Trial Court to have rejected the application of the plaintiff for amendment and inclusion of the date of the registered agreement of sale. 13. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 17.02.2015 passed on I.A.No.7 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Gadag, in O.S.No.85/2019, is hereby set aside. iii. Consequently, I.A.No.7 for amendment is allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to carry out the amendment as sought for. iv. The plaintiff shall proceed further with the arguments of the case without causing any further delay. v. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously. Both the parties shall cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. vi. The plaintiff shall pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the defendant, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7308 WP No. 103072 of 2025 which shall be a condition precedent to proceed further in the case. The cost shall be paid on the next date of hearing. vii. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30