- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41503 WP No. 4606 of 2022 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. 4606 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI LALCHAND BANSALI S/O SRI SOHANLAL BANSALI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O NEAR SIPANI SAWMILL GAVVANAHALLI, RAMPURA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI N.R. RAVI KUMAR, ADV., SRI K.S. GANESHA, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI LATE B.T. VENKATESH BY LRS SMT. PUTTALAKSHMI W/O LATE B.T. VENKATSHA 54 YEARS. 2. SRI B.V. KESHAVA S/O LATE B.T. VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT CHENNAKESHAVA NAGARA, SAKALESHPURA ROAD BELURU TOWN, PIN - 573 115. 3. SMT. B.T. SHESHAMMA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AGRICULTURIST AND COOLIE WORK, R/AT CHENNAKESHAVA NAGARA SAKALESHPURA ROAD BELURU TOWN PIN 573 115. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41503 WP No. 4606 of 2022 4. SRI A.M.BASAVEGOWDA S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGED 78 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O ARADAVALLI, AMBLE HOBLI MUGULUVALLI POST CHIKKAMAGALUURU TALUK PIN-577 101. 5. SMT. SUMA S/O JANARADHANA AGED 53 YEARS R/AT NO.1382, 2ND CROSS NEHRU NAGAR, MANDYA-571401. 6. SRI K.L. BALACHANDRA S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHI K.A. AGED 45 YEARS. 7. SRI K.L.GURU S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHI K.A. AGED 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE R/AT RENUKA NLAYA 1ST CROSS, SHARAVATHINAGARA NEAR NAGAPPA TEMPLE, SHIVAMOGGA PIN-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJA L, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3 & R-5; V/O/D 24.05.2022, NOTICE TO R-4, R-6 & R-7 IS D/W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.11.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU ON I.A.NO.11, FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC, IN O.S.94-2016 ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41503 WP No. 4606 of 2022 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 no. 1 is before this Court in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25.11.2021, passed in I.A.No.II in O.S.No.94/2016 by the Court of II Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagalur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent nos.1 to 3 herein had filed O.S. No.94/2016 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Chikkamagaluru seeking the relief of declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. In the said suit, defendant no.1 had filed his written statement opposing the prayer made in the suit. At the stage of cross- examination of PW1, I.A. No.11 was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to permit him to amend his written statement. The said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41503 WP No. 4606 of 2022 application was opposed by the plaintiffs and the trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected the said application on the ground that the same was filed after commencement of trial, which is not permissible in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, defendant no.1 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment does not change the cause of action nor the defence earlier taken in the written statement is being withdrawn. Even before the evidence of the defendants was commenced, the present application was filed. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that in the event this Court is inclined to allow the petition, costs may be imposed on the petitioner and the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41503 WP No. 4606 of 2022 6. The proposed amendment prayed for by defendant no.1 in I.A.No.II reads as follows: "There is no cause of action or the plaintiff to bring the suit. The alleged cause of action is imaginary one. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Since all the legal heirs of Laxmamma, W/o Thimme Gowda are not made as parties or joined as plaintiffs, the present suit is also not maintainable on account of non- joinder of parties". The proposed amendment does not in any way change the nature of the defence taken by the defendants in their written statement nor does it amount to deletion of any admission made by the defendant. 7. In the case of B.K.NARAYANA PILLAI VS PARAMESWARAN PILLAI & ANOTHER - (2000)1 SCC 712, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that though the principles to be followed is applicable for amendment of plaint as well as written statement equally, since the prejudice that is likely to be caused is less in case of amendment of written statement, courts are required to be more liberal in permitting such amendments. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41503 WP No. 4606 of 2022 8. In BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS VS MANOHAR SINGH & ANOTHER - (2006)6 SCC 498, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. 9. In LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729, 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 CPC and it has been held in the said case that, while dealing with the prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41503 WP No. 4606 of 2022 does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the parties which confers a right on the other side. 10. In the present case, the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the case. The trial Court has rejected the adjudication on the ground that application was belatedly filed and even though defendant no.1 had filed his additional written statement, even in the said additional written statement, he had failed to raise the proposed amendment. In my considered view, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application and on the other hand, the application ought to have been allowed compensating the plaintiffs since the application was filed belatedly. Accordingly, the following ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/-, which shall be payable to the plaintiffs before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. (ii) The impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed in I.A.No.II in OS No. 94/2016 by the II Senior - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41503 WP No. 4606 of 2022 Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagalur is set aside and consequently the prayer made in I.A.No.II is granted. (iii) Since the suit is of the year 2016, the trial Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37