- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 147760 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MABUSAB BALASAB BHAVAKHAN, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DANDAPUR-582207, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SUKSHETRA SUSHANTA SHIVACHARYA MAHASWAMIGALU HIREMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DHARMOPADESHA, R/O. SURAKOD-582207, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SATISH S. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AT: NARGUND IN O.S. NO.02/2014 ON I.A. NO.X DATED 27.02.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND THEREBY DISMISS THE APPLICATION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge at: Naragund in O.S. No.02/2014 on I.A. No.X dated 27.03.2020 vide Annexure-G and thereby dismiss the application; b) Pass any other orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit. 2. Sri S.A.Sondur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein filed suit for relief of declaration, injunction and further prayer not to alienate the suit schedule property against the petitioner. It is submitted that the entire plaint averments in the suit is that the respondent is the owner of Plot Nos.45 to 48 carved out of Sy.No.131A of Arban village of Nargund Taluk, Gadag District. It is submitted that the petitioner filed detailed written statement denying the assertion made in the plaint. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and examined other 3 witnesses i.e. witnesses to the sale deed and the Deed Writer who prepared the sale deed. After trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 was proceeded the respondent/plaintiff filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint seeking additional prayer for relief that the defendant shall execute the rectification deed correcting the survey number of the suit schedule property i.e. R.S.No.131A instead of 131B. The trial Court without considering the effect of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowed the application. It is submitted that the respondent/plaintiff got marked Ex.P1 and P8 – sale deeds. Ex.P1 indicates that the sites in question are carved out from Sy.No.131/B. However, Ex.P8 indicates that the sites are carved out from Sy.No.131/A. In the cross-examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that before purchase of property, he has physically inspected the property in question and by that time Sy.No.131/A was already converted for non-agricultural purpose. The said fact clearly indicates that the petitioner was well aware that the sites are carved out in Sy.No.131/B and sold. Now they seeking of amendment after period of 5 years from the filing of the suit and after trial is commenced is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the case of Smt.Venkatamma - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 Namasivayam since dead by LRs v. Sri K.Anil Kumar and others, W.P.No.16411 of 2024 disposed off on 08.07.2025. 3. Per contra, Sri Satish S.Raichur, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioner who is a vendor of the site in question has received the sale consideration and sold the property. It is bounden duty of the vendor to execute the rectification deed on plaintiff pointing out the error crept in the survey number. It is submitted that the trial Court taking note of the fact that the non-allowing of the application would lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and would not change the nature of the suit, proceeded to allow the application, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record indicate that the respondent herein has filed O.S.No.2/2014 seeking relief of declaration, injunction and further prayer against the petitioner/defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 not to alienate the suit schedule property. Para 2 of the plaint averment indicate that the respondent has purchased Plot Nos.45 to 48 from the petitioner and the said sites are carved out from Sy.No.131/A of Arban village, Nargund taluk, Gadag district. The petitioner opposes the said plaint by filing detailed written statement. 6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined PWs.2 to 4, they are the witnesses to the sale deed and the deed writer. The petitioner cross-examined PW1 on different dates. The said cross-examination indicates that the respondent physically inspected the sites before purchase and thereafter, he has purchased the property in question. Be that it may, after recording the evidence of plaintiff side, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint by seeking insertion of the additional prayer for relief of declaration directing the defendant-petitioner herein to execute registered rectification deed, rectifying the correct survey number of the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.131/A instead of Sy.No.131/B. The trial Court under the impugned order, allowed the application. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 plaint averment clearly indicates that the plaintiff has purchased four sites from the defendant and the said sites are carved out of Sy.No.131/A of Arban village. The plaintiff got marked Exs.P1 and P8. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the original sale deed of the plaintiff which indicate that Sy.No.45 to 48 are carved out of Sy.No.131/B. However, Ex.P8 indicate that the aforesaid sites are carved out by Sy.No.131/A. In cross-examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that there is a correction in Ex.P8. Mere perusal of Ex.P8 indicates that there is a correction of ‘B’ in front of Sy.No.131 and by hand written it is added as ‘A’. The perusal of the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint does not whisper anything with regard to the corrections found in Ex.P8. It is not forthcoming as to at whose instance a correction has been carried out at Ex.P8. The perusal of the application seeking amendment does not provide any explanation for filing an application belatedly as the suit is of year 2014 and the application is filed in the year 2019, the delay is more than five years. It is not in dispute that the present application seeking for amendment is filed at a post-trial stage. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision at paragraph No.13 is held as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 “13. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners with regard to the purport of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, there can no qualm about the principles laid down therein. He has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment in the case of DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU v. SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL)6 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: 12. The question that we have to consider, in the above backdrop is whether the High Court fell in error in allowing the application seeking leave to amend pleadings, in contravention of the statutory language. 17. Any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to the largest extent possible, and should generally be, and are rightly frowned upon. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of a Suit. The defendant submits that the time gap between submitting the written statement to the Suit and the presentation of the application seeking leave to amend is unexplained. If this argument of the defendant is accepted, the question of Will shall remain undecided or at best will be decided with great delay. The trial which has admittedly already commenced, would be stalled by way of a challenge to the framing of issues which, in turn, would not be in consonance with the object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which is aimed at preventing multiplicity or multiple avenues of litigation, subsumed under the umbrella of one dispute.” The Apex Court holds that any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to the largest extent possible. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of the suit. The defendant therein - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 had contended that the time gap between the written statement to the suit and the present application seeking leave to amend is unexplained. Even then the Apex Court permitted the amendment on the ground that it was an issue of a Will, which will remain open even after disposal of the suit and result in multiplicity of litigation. The said judgment is distinguishable, on the facts obtaining in the case at hand, without much ado. Though Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC as amended, permits amendments to pleadings at any stage, but tempers such liberty with a proviso that postulates the necessity of due diligence. The rationale is unmistakable, it is to curb interminable litigation and to ensure trials are not derailed by belated pleas. Proviso to Rule 17 of the CPC, is thus, not an ornamental appendage, but a substantive limitation.” 7. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff/respondent has not showed any due diligence in his application as to why he could not seek amendment at a pre-trial stage and there is no explanation whatsoever for filing of the application belatedly. In the absence of any of such averments in the application, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed an error - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10903 WP No. 147760 of 2020 in allowing the application only on the ground that the allowing application would not alter the nature of suit. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 27.02.2020 passed on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.2/2014 by the Civil Judge, Nargund is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.X is rejected. iii. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK-para 1 to 5 RKM-para 6 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15