- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.115414 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUPRIYA W/O. ASHOK BAILUR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: 3497, NARVEKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN BELAGAVI CITY CORPORATION, EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., CTS NO.3525/1, NARVEKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. CITY CORPORATION BELGAUM BY ITS COMMISSIONER, RISALDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SMT. ROHINI W/O. VAMAN BAILUR AGE: 96 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: 3497, NARVEKAR GALLI, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.18 15:23:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 BELAGAVI-590001. 4. MRS. ARPANA W/O. ARUN BAILUR AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: 3497, NARVEKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. 5. SMT. SWATI ASHOK BAILUR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: 3497, NARVEKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH N.MISALE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21-10-2019 ON I.A.NO.8 FILED U/O 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS I.A.NO.9) PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI, IN O.S.NO.39/2007, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 21.10.2019 on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.39/2007 passed by the V Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi dismissing the petitioner's application seeking amendment of the plaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit is for declaration and mandatory injunction and while describing the suit property at some places, the boundary of the property is wrongly shown due to typographical error. Thus, he would contend that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit and no prejudice - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 would be caused to the defendants in case application is allowed. 4. The Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for amendment on the premise that the evidence has commenced and proper explanation is not forthcoming. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the cross-examination has commenced and the case is posted for cross- examination of PW1. Application is filed with an intention to harass the respondents. It is further submitted that earlier application for amendment filed by the plaintiff was allowed; the said order was called in question by the respondents by filing Writ Petition No.102968/2015; the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to Trial Court and thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff has not filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 any affidavit explaining the delay in not filing the application before commencement of the trial. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and Another1, to contend that application for amendment after the commencement of the trial, is not maintainable. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Farhana Sami vs. Dynamic Developers Pvt. Ltd2, to contend that the plaint cannot be amended after the commencement of the trial. 7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 8. The power of the Court to amend the pleadings after the commencement of the trial to an extent is curtailed by amendment to the Code of Civil 1 AIR 2009 SC 1433 2 CM(M) 2105/2025 & CM Appl. 68903/2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 Procedure, in the year 2002. However, it is well settled principle of law that the Court's power to permit amendment is not completely taken away after the commencement of the trial. In deserving cases, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to do complete justice to the parties and to resolve all the controversies involved, the Court can permit the amendment. 9. The question is whether order passed by this Court in earlier round of writ petition, would debar the plaintiff from praying for amendment. In earlier writ petition, the Court has allowed the challenge to the order permitting the amendment on the premise that the Trial Court has not assigned valid reasons for allowing the amendment despite the delay in filing the application for amendment. 10. It is to be noticed that the nature of amendment is what matters more, rather than the stage in which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 application for amendment is filed. From the proposed amendment, it is noticed that the petitioner/plaintiff is only seeking to amend the directions mentioned in the suit property at few places. Thus, it is apparent that nature of the suit does not change. The direction of the property gets corrected according to the plaintiff's version. Whether the proposed description shown in the application seeking amendment, is correct or not is again a matter of trial, which has to be considered after considering additional written statements, if any to be filed by the defendants. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would urge that admission in the cross-examination would be nullified in case the amendment is to be allowed, and same cannot be accepted. The reason is, admission is given in respect of the description of the property which according to the plaintiff is incorrect. In case the plaintiff is permitted to amend - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 the description that does not mean that the defendants cannot cross-examine the plaintiff in respect of the description provided by way of an amendment. 12. In addition, it is also required to be noticed that in case, the plaintiff is not permitted to correct the plaint by way of an amendment and in case the suit is dismissed on the premise that the description of the property is not correct, that does not preclude the plaintiff from filing one more suit by providing the correct description. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the diligence is not established by the petitioner/plaintiff. It is to be noticed that amendment which is sought is only relating to the description of the property and the features on certain directions are sought to be changed on account of typographical mistake. It is quite - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 possible that while providing the description of the property and providing the landmarks on four directions, the party may end up in giving incorrect information. Under these circumstances, the contention that there was no due diligence exercised, cannot be accepted. 14. Under these circumstances, the amendment ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court notwithstanding the fact that amendment application is moved after the commencement of the trial. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others (supra) in Para No.19 has held as under: “19. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” 16. After going through the proposed amendment, this Court is of the view that amendment is necessary for adjudication of the case. As already noticed, in case the amendment is not permitted and the suit is dismissed for incorrect disclosure of the suit property, the second suit is not barred. The purpose of amendment is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 17. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in it. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 21.10.2019 passed by learned V Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi in O.S.No.39/2007, is set-aside. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16759 WP No. 115414 of 2019 iii. The petitioner-plaintiff shall amend the plaint. iv. The defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. v. The Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contents of the amended version of the plaint. It is for the plaintiff to establish the discretion of the suit property. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10