- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14884/2019 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.9890/2017 (GM-CPC) IN W.P. No.14884/2019: BETWEEN: H. MANJUNATH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKAPETE SORABA TOWN-577429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADV., FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.,) AND: 1. GODHAVARI PETKAR W/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 2. MAHESH PETKAR S/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. KESAVMURTHY PETKAR S/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. DATTATREYA PETKAR S/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 R/O NO.16, 2ND MAIN TELECOM LAYOUT NEAR MAHESH BHUPATHI PLAYGROUND BENGALURU-560097. RESPONDENTS ARE PRESENTLY: RESIDING AT NO.38 RAGHAVENDRA BADAVANE SORABA TOWN-577429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMALATA MAHISHI, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.14.01.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA ON I.A.NO.6 IN DECLINING TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING TO AMEND THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.86/2010 PRODUCED AT ANNX-K TO THE W.P. ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION ALLOWING IA NO.6 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.86/2010 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN & ETC. IN W.P. NO.9890/2017: BETWEEN: H. MANJAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA @ BABANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS CLOTH MERCHANT RESIDENT OF CHIKKAPETH SORABA TOWN - 577 429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADV., FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.,) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 AND: GODHAVARI PETKAR W/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.38 RAGHAVENDRA BADAVANE SORABA TOWN - 577 429 SHIVAMOGGA - DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. HEMALATA MAHISHI, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 16.12.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SORABA ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.83/2010 DECLINING TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT PRODUCED AS ANNX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION. ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION ALLOWING I.A.NO.6 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.83/2010 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN & ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER W.P.No.14884/2019 is filed challenging the order dated 14.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.86/2010 by the Civil Judge, & JMFC, Soraba, (for short, 'the trial Court') and W.P.No.9890/2017 is filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2016 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.83/2010 by the trial Court. 2. Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions submits that Sri.H.Manjunath, petitioner in W.P.No.14884/2019, filed a suit in O.S.No.86/2010 for the relief of declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction over the suit schedule property and in W.P.No.9890/2017, the respondent has filed O.S.No.83/2010 for the relief of injunction. It is submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has filed a written statement and thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 18.05.1985, which came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 the amendment is time barred. It is further submitted that the issue with regard to the limitation is required to be gone into during the trial and the rejection of the application I.A.No.6 is bad in law. Hence, he seeks to allow the same. 3. It is also submitted that in the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.83/2010, the petitioner herein has filed the written statement and thereafter filed an application seeking for amendment of the written statement adding the relief of counter claim based on the agreement of sale and claims that he is in permissive possession over the suit schedule property. However, the trial Court without appreciating the fact that the counter claim filed by the petitioner is required to be gone into during trial and without appreciating the same, rejected the application for amendment of the written statement. Hence, he seeks to allow both the petitions by permitting the petitioner to raise the counter claim in O.S.No.83/2010 and also seeks permission to amend the plaint in O.S.No.86/2010. 4. Per contra, Smt.Hemalata Mahishi, learned counsel for the respondents in both the petitions supports the impugned orders of the trial Court and submits that the suit is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 filed by the petitioner as well as respondent in the year 2010 and the application for amendment of the plaint is filed belatedly seeking the relief of specific performance in a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of his ownership, which is impermissible and the said application is barred by limitation as the proposed amendment is to enforce the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985 and as per the agreement, the performance was on or before 19.06.1986 and if the said date is also considered, it is more than thirty (30) years from the time stipulated in the agreement. The trial Court taking note of the same, has rejected the application for amendment of the plaint. 5. It is also submitted that the counter claim raised in the application seeking amendment of the written statement is also barred by limitation and contrary to the settled principles of law. The proposed counter claim would also change the nature of the suit as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira and others1. Hence, she seeks to dismiss both the petitions with exemplary costs as these petitions are nothing but abuse of process of law. 1 Civil Appeal No.2886/2012 disposed of on 29.02.2024 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available record. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced on both sides. 7. In W.P.No.14884/2019, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010, has impugned the order of the trial Court, wherein it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.6 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for amendment of the plaint. The suit filed by the petitioner is for declaration and permanent injunction and by way of amendment the petitioner is seeking to change the prayer in the plaint to specific performance based on the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.86/2010 made a reference to the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985. When things stood thus, the filing of an application, belatedly, seeking to change the prayer in the plaint, is impermissible, as the petitioner has knowledge and made a reference of the said agreement of sale in the plaint. However, the proposed amendment is filed after more than 16 years of filing of the suit and more than 31 years - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 from the date of the agreement. The proposed amendment is barred by limitation as rightly held by the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. 8. In O.S.No.83/2010, the petitioner in W.P.No.9890/2017, has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The said application also came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the application is filed belatedly and the proposed counter claim in the application is beyond the period of limitation. In the proposed counter claim also the petitioner is seeking to urge that the petitioner is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property again based on the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985. Hence, the trial Court, taking note of the nature of amendment sought, has rightly come to conclusion that the proposed amendment is beyond the period of limitation and rejected the same. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017 9. This Court in the case of Abdul Sattar v. M.Khalid Since deceased Rep. by LRs and others2. by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri and Others3 has held that no counter claim can be entertained after framing of the issues. In the instant cases, the applications for proposed amendment of written statement raising counterclaim is filed after the commencement of trial, even on the said ground also the petitions are liable to be rejected. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, petitions are devoid of merits and the same are accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 2 W.P.No.2867/2020 disposed of on 12.06.2025 3 (2020) 2 SCC 394