- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 42520 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DR. T.S. UMA MURALIDHAR W/O A. MURULIDHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1297 14TH CROSS, GIRINAGARA 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. A. MURALIDHAR S/O LATE N. ANANTHCHAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1297 14TH CROSS, GIRINAGARA 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI V.V. GUNJA, ADV.) AND: SRI R. LAKSHMAN S/O R.V. RAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.50 50 FEET ROAD, GIRINAGARA 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 085. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M.V. ASHWINI, ADV., FOR SRI VEDA MURTHY M.V, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOMODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH- 59) IN O.S.NO.8977/2015 ON I.A.NO.XI DATED 16.08.2019 AS PER ANENXURE-A AND THEREBY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AS IA.NO.XI AS PER ANNEXURE-K ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-59) IN O.S.NO.8977/2015 AND THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CARRY OUT THE AMENDMENTS. 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. This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant no.1 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.08.2019 passed on IA no.11 in O.S.No.8977/2015 by the Court of LVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had filed O.S.No.8977/2015 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, seeking for a decree of specific performance of the mortgage deed/rectification deed dated 27.12.2010 and 10.05.2011, and had also sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any charge over the suit schedule property. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 4. The petitioner herein had filed written statement in the said suit on 04.02.2015. Subsequently, IA no.11 was filed by the petitioner to amend her written statement and the said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. 5. The Trial Court, vide the order impugned, has rejected IA no.11 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, defendant is entitled to take inconsistent defences. He submits that proposed amendment do not change the cause of action, nor it is barred by limitation. Attempt is made by the defendant to explain the admission made in the written statement by seeking amendment. Liberal view has to be taken while considering an application seeking amendment since the principle for considering an application for amendment of plaint and written statement are different. He fairly submits that in the proposed amendment, he does not press the prayer to permit the petitioner to delete paragraph nos.5 & 6 of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 written statement. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729, REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS NARAYANASWAMY AND SONS & ANOTHER - (2009)10 SCC 84, SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN VS MANOR KUMAR & ANR. - AIR 2009 SC 2544, BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS VS MANOHAR SINGH & ANOTHER - (2006)6 SCC 498, USHA BALASAHEB SWAMI & OTHERS VS KIRAN APPASO SWAMI & OTHERS - (2007)5 SCC 602. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer made in the petition. She submits that the proposed amendment is likely to change the nature of the defence taken by the defendant in the original written statement. The admissions made by the defendant in her written statement are sought to be deleted by seeking the proposed amendment. Amendment application has been filed at a belated stage, and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 8. In the proposed amendments, the defendant no.1 has prayed that in paragraph no.2 of the written statement, the words ‘by force’, may be incorporated after the words ’mortgage deed’, and in the proposed amendment no.2, in paragraph no.4 of the written statement, instead of the words 'written statement', the word 'plaint' is sought to be incorporated. The said proposed amendment, in my considered view, will not change the nature of the defence, nor would it amount to deleting the admissions, if any, made by the defendant in the written statement. 9. A further amendment is sought to delete the second sentence in paragraph no.5 of the written statement and also to delete paragraph no.6 of the written statement and in place of paragraph no.6, to permit the defendant to incorporate proposed paragraph nos.6, 6(a), 6b), 6(c), 6(d) & 6(e). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the prayer made for amendment may be considered only to add the proposed paragraph nos.6, 6(a), 6b), 6(c), 6(d) & 6(e), and the prayer in so far as it relates to permitting the defendant to delete the second sentence of paragraph no.5 of the written - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 statement and paragraph no.6 of the written statement may be dismissed as not pressed. 10. In the proposed paragraphs which are sought to be incorporated in place of the original paragraph no.6, an explanation is sought to be made as to how the mortgage deed/rectification deed based on which, the relief of specific performance is sought in the suit had come into effect. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Usha Balashaheb Swami's case supra, has observed that without permitting the defendant to wriggle out of an admission by seeking amendment, he can be permitted to explain the admission and it would be permissible to add a rider and/or proviso to the admission while keeping the admission intact. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a fair submission that, keeping the admissions in paragraph nos.5 & 6 of the written statement intact, the prayer made by the petitioner to incorporate additional paragraph nos.6, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 6(d), 6(e) may be allowed. In my considered view, the said prayer is reasonable and other side will not be prejudiced if the same is allowed. In Sushil Kumar Jain's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 held that admission made in the written statement can be explained through amendments. 12. Similarly, there is a prayer for deleting paragraph no.16 of the written statement and to incorporate the proposed paragraph no.16 in place of the original paragraph no.16. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he does not pray for deleting any defence taken by him in the original statement, I am of the opinion that by retaining the original paragraph no.16 in the written statement, if the proposed paragraph no.16 is permitted to be incorporated immediately after the original paragraph no.16, the same would serve the ends of justice and no hardship would be caused to the other side. 13. The petitioner has further sought for amendment of paragraph no.13 of the written statement by incorporating the words "in a peculiar circumstance", immediately after the words "flats to the plaintiff". The said proposed amendment does not change the nature of defence nor does it amount to deletion of any admission made. Plaintiff has also made a prayer to amend prayer (a) and has sought to delete the words "by setting off - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 the claims of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.95,000/-", and in its place to incorporate the words "to direct the plaintiff to refund the amount collected from 1st defendant which comes Rs.15,15,000/- with interest at the date of 12% from the date of this suit till the date of payment". 14. As stated earlier, the defendant is entitled to take inconsistent stand, whereas the plaintiff is not supposed to do so. 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. 15. In Baldev Singh's case supra, 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 16. In Life Insurance Corporation of India's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters for the course 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 hypertechnical 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. 17. In the case on hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the prayer for amendment made in the application may be considered except the prayer made by the petitioner for deleting certain paragraphs, wherein - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41266 WP No. 42520 of 2019 according to the plaintiffs the defendant had made certain admissions. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the prayer made in IA no.11, except the prayer to delete second sentence in paragraph no.5 and to delete paragraph 6 and 16, if the other prayers are granted, ends of justice would be served. Accordingly, the following order: 18. Writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 16.08.2019 passed on IA no.11 in O.S.No.8977/2015 by the Court of LVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside, to the extent it relates to dismissing the prayer in the application except the prayer to delete second sentence in paragraph no.5 of the written statement and deleting paragraph nos.6 & 16 of the written statement. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK