- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 28726 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI A M NACHAPPA S/O. A.N.MUTHANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.2748, 3RD STAGE, DATTAGALLI EXTENSION, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU- 570 004. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AISHWARYA S FOR SRI. RAJESWARA.P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: M K PARAMASHIVAIAH DEAD BY LRS. 1. SMT. S.P.KAMALLAMMA W/O LATE M.K.PARAMASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT SHIVANEGOWDA DODDI, MADAPURA HOBLI, MAYAGANAHALLI POST, RAMANAGARA TALUK DISTRICT- 562 128. 2. P. YOGANANDA S/O LATE M.K.PARAMASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO-27, 4TH CROSS, NEW BYAPPANAHALLI, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 038. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 3. P.SHIVANANDA S/O LATE M.K.PARAMASHIVALAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO-27, 4TH CROSS, NEW BYAPPANAHALLI, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038 4. MR.C.M.SWAMY B.COM, LLB ADVOCATE, (THASHILDAR.RTD) UNIT NO. 107, 1ST FLOOR, BRIGADE GARDENS, 19, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU- 560001. SMT.SHAILAJA DEAD BY LR'S 5. KUM. KAJOL. A.N D/O. A.M.NACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.2748, 3RD STAGE, DATTAGALLI EXTENSION, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU- 570 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R C NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (C/R); V/O DTD 13.10.2025 NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 D/W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.35 IN O.S.NO.1111/2014 C/W O.S.NO.287/2012 BY THE HON'BLE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, MYSURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW APPLICATION I.A.NO.35 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the plaintiff No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2025 passed on IA No.35, in O.SNo.1111/2014 connected with O.S.No.287/2012 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, which is filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff No.1 filed the suit for the relief of declaration, to declare the sale deed dated 10.12.2010 is void and to declare that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property, and for other consequential reliefs. 3. The case is presently posted for arguments, and since the plaintiffs did not argue, now it is posted for pronouncement of judgment. At the stage of arguments, plaintiff No.1 has filed an application IA No.35, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to incorporate paragraph 18A, which reads as under. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 "AMENDMENT SOUGHT FOR: After para 18, para 18-A, has to be inserted .....The plaintiffs submit that, when the defendant started to make a galata in front of the house with the goonda elements to vacate the premises, the plaintiff lodge a complaint before the Kuvempunagara police station alleging the misrepresentation and fraud committed by the defendant. The Kuvempunagara police station called the plaintiffs and the defendant and enquired about the incident. The defendant undertook to execute a re-conveyance deed and will not disturb the possession of the property. After some time with his financial influence and political clout, the defendant did not execute any deed. The police issued an endorsement that, the matter is of civil in nature. The plaintiffs is producing the copy of the complaint and endorsement issued by the police for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble court." 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 that the said amendment is required for proper adjudication of the suit. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said averment has been made in the plaint at the first instance at paragraph 19 of the plaint, which reads as under: 19. The cause of action for the suit aroused on 17/12/2010 when they came to know about the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 existence of sale deed and when they enquired about these with 2nd defendant and they applied for certified copy, when the 1st defendant made galata and gave a compliant to jurisdiction police and when the letter written to the defendants and they were reluctant to cancel the deed and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court. 5. The defendants have strongly opposed the said application on the ground that the same is filed only with an intention to prolong and protract the proceedings, as several applications seeking amendments were made by the plaintiffs, namely four applications prior to this application which were allowed and the present one is made only with an intention to prolong and protract the proceedings. The same being frivolous as the averment so sought to be incorporated is already existing in paragraph No.19 of the plaint. Therefore, he contended that it may not be required and necessary for adjudication of the lis. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the application. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 6. The learned trial Judge has heard the matter and has passed an order rejecting the application being not satisfied with the submission made for permission for the amendment to be incorporated and the application came to be rejected as being frivolous. The trial Court has come to a conclusion that the stage of evidence is completed, matter is now set up for arguments and it is filed at a belated stage. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents /defendants submits that no purpose would be served in permitting the amendment as it is already incorporated at paragraph No.19. If the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 was cautious and diligent in prosecuting the case, he could have filed necessary documents with regard to the complaint having been registered which is now sought to be incorporated in the amendment as the same was within in the knowledge of the plaintiffs as on date of filing the suit which is stated at paragraph No.19 by the plaintiffs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 8. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Order- VI Rule - 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. “17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 9. Undoubtedly in the present case, the trial has concluded. The matter is set down for arguments on the main. At this stage, the present application is filed seeking amendment. Proviso to Order-VI Rule-17 clearly states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Apparently in the present case even according to the plaintiff, the averment has been made at the first instance at paragraph-19 of the plaint. Therefore nothing prevented the plaintiff from producing the document i.e, the complaint as stated and so also there is no requirement for the amendment to be incorporated as already the averment is made at paragraph-19 in the plaint. It is for the plaintiff to lead evidence in accordance with the said averment already incorporated and produce the document which was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit. 10. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 and I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the trial Court, having considered all aspects, has rightly come to the conclusion - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40308 WP No. 28726 of 2025 that the amendment is not required and hence dismissed the application. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER 1. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. The petition is dismissed by imposing further cost of Rs.5,000/-. 2. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A. No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE