- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2971 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RASAL BAI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE C.H.SHANTHILAL R/AT NO.1, SOMESHWARA KOIL STREET, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560 008 2. SMT. LALITHA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE C.H. SHANTHI LAL W/O GYANCHAND BHURAT, R/AT NO.98, GANDHI ROAD, BANAVARAM, RANIPET, TAMIL NADU-632401 3. SMT. SUNITHA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O LATE C.H. SHANTHILAL AND W/O MANAKCHAND KHATOD, R/AT NO.7, KOTHAWAL STATION ROAD, VALLALAR DISTRICT (SA), CHIDAMBARAM, TAMIL NADU-608001 4. SRI. H.S. GOUTHAM AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE C.H.SHANTHILAL, R/AT NO.1, SOMESHWARA KOIL STREET, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560 008 5. SMT. ANITHA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE C.H. SHANTHILAL, W/O PANKAJ KUMAR BOHRA, R/AT NO.160, RAJENDRA NIVAS, Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 K.R. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 6. SMT. SANGEETHA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O LATE C.H. SHANTHILAL, W/O ASHOK KUMAR RAKECHA, MEGA JEWELLERS, KEELACHATHRAM ROAD, TENNUR, TIRUCHI, TAMIL NADU-620017 THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3, 5 AND 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI. H.S. GOUTHAM, THE PETITIONER NO.4 HEREIN …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.D. HANSRAJ AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE C.H. DHANRAJ, R/AT NO.4, 1ST CROSS, DODDAKATTAPPA ROAD, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560008. 2. SRI. H.D. SHEETAL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE C.H. DHANRAJ, R/AT NO.3, 1ST CROSS, DODDAKATTAPPA ROAD, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560008. 3. SRI. H.D. SUBASH CHAND AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE C.H. DHANRAJ, R/AT NO.124, OLD MADRAS ROAD, (NEAR BATA SHOW ROOM) HALASURU, BENGALURU-560008 SRI. C.H. MADANLAL SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 4. SRI. H.M. JASWANTHRAJ, S/O LATE C.H. MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 5. SMT. SUSHILA @ SUSHILA BAI D/O LATE C.H. MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 6. SRI. H.M. RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O LATE C.H. MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 7. SMT. MANJU @ MANJULA D/O LATE C.H. MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 8. SRI. H.M. VINOD KUMAR S/O LATE C.H. MADANLAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.19, SOMESWARA TEMPLE STREET, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.02.2021, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.08.2023, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S NO.360/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, CCH-44, HEAR THE PARTIES AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 04.02.2021 PASSED ON IA NOS.36 AND 37 IN O.S NO.360/2008 BY THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 BENGALURU, CCH-44 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NOS.36 AND 37. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The plaintiffs in O.S. No.360/2008 on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) have filed this petition challenging an order dated 04.02.2021 by which applications i.e., I.A Nos.36 and 37 filed by them under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) were rejected. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein were the plaintiffs while the respondents herein were the defendants before the Trial Court. 3. The suit in O.S. No.360/2008 was filed for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with their possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs and also restrain - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 them from encumbering or alienating the suit property in any manner whatsoever. The suit property was described as an immovable property bearing No.32 (old No.24-A), Old Madras Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru-560 008. The plaintiffs claimed title to the suit property. 4. The plaintiffs contended that the suit property was purchased by a Firm named M/s.Harakchand Dhanraj (henceforth referred to as ‘the Firm’) in the name of one of its partners named Sri C.H. Dhanaraj and that the entire consideration was paid by the Firm. The partnership Firm had initiated proceedings against a tenant Dr. D. Subramanayam in HRC No.10029/1983 before the X Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, where the Firm was represented by one Mr. C.H. Madanlal – defendant No.4. It was pleaded in the said petition that the Firm was the owner of the petition premises and that the aforesaid tenant was sought to be evicted on the ground that the premises was required for the use of the Firm and for the occupation of the grown-up children of the three partners of the Firm. They claimed that their predecessor Sri C.H. Shanthilal wanted to exit from the Firm while the other two partners intended to continue the partnership. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 Accordingly, a release deed was executed on 25.10.1984. They claimed that the suit property was allotted to the share of their predecessor Mr. C.H. Shanthilal apart from 1/3rd portion of the agricultural land and cash to his share. In view of the same, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, namely, Mr. C.H. Shanthilal, released his rights over the partnership Firm, its assets and liabilities. Later, on 26.10.1984, Mr. C.H. Dhanaraj and Mr. C.H. Madanlal entered into an agreement with Mr. C.H. Shanthilal which indicated that the said Mr. C.H. Shanthilal had retired from the Firm with effect from 24.10.1984 and that in consideration of all his claims in the Firm, he was allotted the property as described in the deed of release and relinquishment and the dissolution executed by them on 25.10.1984. However, their predecessor could not get his name entered in the municipal records relating to the suit property. The plaintiffs therefore contended that the suit property was owned and possessed by their predecessor – Mr. C.H. Shanthilal and that after his death, they had succeeded to it. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants who denied the case of the plaintiffs and also denied their entitlement to the reliefs sought for. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 6. The Trial Court framed issues and set down the case for trial and after the evidence was concluded, the plaintiffs filed two applications, namely, I.A. No.36 under Section 151 of the CPC to reopen the case of the plaintiffs by recalling the order dated 29.01.2021 and to permit them to file an interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and I.A. No.37 under Order VI Rule 7 of CPC to amend the plaint to mention the property number in the schedule to the plaint as old No.25-A instead of old No.24-A. Learned counsel for defendant No.3 submitted that defendant No.3 had no objection to allow the said applications. The other defendants did not contest the applications. 7. The Trial Court rejected the applications in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the same were filed to protract the proceedings. It held that a perusal of the applications did not show that the plaintiffs, despite due diligence could not notice the mistake when the suit was filed. Therefore, it held that the plaintiffs were adopting dubious ways to delay the proceedings in the suit and hence, it held that I.A Nos.36 and 37 were not bona fide. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the suit property was originally assigned with a municipal No.25-A and later was re-numbered as No.32. He submits that while describing the suit property instead of mentioning it as No.25-A, it was wrongly mentioned as 24-A. He, however, contends that the new number continues to be 32 and this being a typographical error, the Trial Court must have permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to incorporate the correct number of the suit property. He also contends that none of the defendants had opposed the applications and it is the Trial Court which suspected the bona fides of the plaintiffs in filing the applications. 10. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 / respondent No.3 submitted that the suit is filed in the year 2008 and the instant applications were filed when the suit was set down for arguments. Therefore, he contends that the applications are not genuine and bona fide and they are designed to protract the proceedings. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that all the documents that are produced referred to the property number as 25-A and not 24-A and therefore, it is necessary that the suit schedule property is properly described as 25-A instead of 24-A. He contends that if the plaintiffs are permitted to amend the plaint, they will not lead any further evidence. 12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 and perused the material on record. 13. The suit is filed for declaration and for perpetual injunction in respect of a property bearing No.32 (old No.24-A). The suit has proceeded on that footing. It is unfortunate that the plaintiffs have not realized the mistake in describing the suit property as bearing No.24-A while the actual number of the suit property was 25-A. Therefore, the Trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs were not diligent in seeking amendment of the plaint at the earliest point in time. However, it is relevant to note that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs was necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the suit. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 Therefore, the Trial Court must have allowed the applications by placing the plaintiffs on terms, so as to compensate the defendants for loss of time in the litigation. This may have balanced out the claim of the plaintiffs as well as the contention of the defendants. As the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs is just and necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed on I.A. Nos.36 and 37 in O.S. No.360/2008 by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the said applications filed by the plaintiffs is set aside. The applications in I.A. Nos.36 and 37 filed by the plaintiffs are allowed and the plaintiffs are permitted to amend the plaint only to incorporate the old suit property No.25-A instead of 24-A in the schedule to the plaint. It is made clear that the plaintiffs shall not lead any evidence of whatsoever nature. It is however open for the defendants to file any additional written statement, if they are so advised. They may also seek recall of the plaintiffs’ witnesses if they - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7034 WP No. 2971 of 2021 desire to cross-examine them further only in so far as the amendment of the plaint is concerned. 15. Since the suit is filed in the year 2008, the Trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit – O.S. No.360/2008 as early as possible as prescribed under the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58