- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1459/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MUNE GOWDA S/O NANJAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S. 1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA WIFE OF LATE MUNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. NATARAJ .M SON OF LATE MUNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/OF KUDUVATHI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T, ADV.,) AND: SRI. BACHAPPA (DEAD) SON OF NANJAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S. 1. SRI. MANJUNATH SON OF LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. MUNIYAMMA WIFE OF BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 3. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE BACHAPPA WIFE OF MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. R1 TO R3 ARE R/OF KUDUVATHI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562 101. 4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA DAUGHTER OF BACHAPPA WIFE OF MUNI ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT. RAMANTHAPURA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK. 5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 6. SRI. SHIVA KUMAR SON OF LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. R5 & R6 ARE R/OF KUDUVATHI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562 101. 7. SMT. MAMATHA DAUGHTER OF MUNE GOWDA WIFE OF SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT THIMMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, TBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA B.S. ADV., FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:11.09.2023 NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE H/S V/O/DTD:11.09.2023 NOTICE TO R5 TO R7 ARE D/W) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.9.2019 IN THE SUIT BEARING O.S.NO.578/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Quash the order dated 21.09.2019 in the suit bearing O.S.No.578/2007 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapur on the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as per Annexure-A and consequently dismiss the application in the ends of justice." 2. Sri.Srinivasan T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents filed a suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners claiming that the plaintiffs are the owners of 29 guntas of the land in Sy.No.82/2 of Kuduvathi Village. The said suit was proceeded further. Later, the plaintiffs filed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 an application for amendment of the plaint to add the words "northern half measuring 14½ guntas" in the third line of the schedule after the words Rs.3.52 paise, which came to be allowed. The petitioners filed a detailed written statement contending that the petitioners are the owners in possession of 1 acre 39 guntas. It is submitted that the petitioners also filed a suit in OS.No.53/2013 for relief of permanent injunction against Sri.K.T.Byrappa. The said suit ended in compromise. After coming to know of the said compromise, after a period of 12 years, the plaintiffs filed another application seeking to amend the plaint by deleting 29 guntas from the schedule by substituting the words measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and karab of 0-02 guntas and out of which 0-38.08 guntas standing in the name of the father of the plaintiffs i.e., Sri.Nanjappa. It is submitted that as on the date of filing of the second amendment application, the suit was amended on earlier occasion and the plaintiffs have restricted their claim for 14½ guntas. However, the trial Court without appreciating - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 the fact that there is no due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs and contrary to the admissions in the evidence, allowed the application. It is further submitted that the stand of the plaintiffs in the suit after the amendment is diagonally opposite to the stand they have taken when the suit was filed in the year 2007. By such amendment, the parties are relegate back to the first stage of the proceedings. In effect, the nature of suit would change. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have time and again held that the application filed belatedly and without any due diligence, for amendment cannot be allowed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh and Others1 and of this Court in the case of Smt.Gawradevi S. Orekondy and Others v. K.B.Rudrappa and 1 AIR 1996 SC 2358 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 Others2. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and by rejecting the application. 3. Per contra, Sri.Ravindra B.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the plaintiffs are rustic villagers and had no knowledge with regard to the legal proceedings. Hence, application was filed based on the documents and came to be allowed by the trial Court by a well reasoned order. It is further submitted that the trial Court considered the contentions advanced by the petitioners herein under the impugned order and came to the conclusion that the proposed amendment though filed belatedly would not change the cause of action and there would be sufficient opportunity to the other side to file a written statement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2 ILR 2012 KAR 3961 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. Respondents/plaintiffs filed OS.No.578/2007 seeking judgment and decree to declare that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the plaint land and the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and further relief of permanent injunction. The records indicate that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was to the extent of 29 guntas as per the schedule. The plaint averments also make it clear that the plaintiffs have claimed that in the subject survey number, they are the owners of 29 guntas. The petitioners opposed the said suit claiming that they are the absolute owners in possession of 1 acre 39 guntas in the said survey number. The records further indicate that the plaintiffs sought amendment of the schedule seeking incorporation of the words "Out of this, the northern half measuring 14½ guntas" in the third line of the schedule after the word - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 Rs.3.52 paise. The said amendment came to be allowed, which can be noticed from the schedule where the said incorporation was found. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the said amendment the plaintiffs have restricted their prayer to the 14½ guntas in the said survey number. The records also indicate that the parties have led evidence. Cross-examination of PW.1 produced along with writ petition indicates that PW.1 is the GPA holder of the original plaintiff, who has admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of 14½ guntas of the land and he has claimed 29 guntas of ownership. The petitioners filed OS.No.53/2003 for a relief of injunction against Sri.K.T.Byrappa. The said suit ended in compromise as it is evident from Annexure-'J' in the writ petition. In the compromise petition at Annexure-'H', the petitioners asserted that they are the owners in possession of 1 acre 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.82/2 of Kuduvathi Village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') on 03.08.2019 seeking to delete the words only 29 guntas from the pleading and the schedule by seeking to substitute it with the words measuring 1 acre 37 guntas and karab of 0-02 guntas, out of which 0- 38.08 guntas standing in the name of plaintiffs' father Sri.Nanjappa. The proposed amendment now sought indicates that the plaintiffs intend to claim their declaration to the extent of 0-38.08 guntas in the aforesaid extent, out of 1 acre 37 guntas and karab of 0-02 guntas. To support the said application for amendment the plaintiffs have stated in their affidavit that the total extent of survey number is 1 acre 37 guntas and 0-02 guntas of kharab land and out of which 0-38.08 guntas is standing in the name of their father Sri.Nanjappa, son of Bachappa Mayasandra. However, by oversight and inadvertence, in the plaint, it is written as 29 guntas, however, the records available in respect of the said survey number indicate otherwise. Hence, he seeks to allow the said application. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is also contented that respondents/plaintiffs' father was innocent and illiterate and respondent No.1 is deaf and dumb by birth. Hence, he could not notice the factual mistake in the plaint. The trial Court allowed the said application on the ground that though the amendment is filed belatedly, it would not change the nature of suit and cause of action. 6. In my considered view, the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application. At paragraph No.11 of the impugned order of the trial Court, the trial Court has perused the records made available by the plaintiffs more particularly the RTC, which discloses that the name of the plaintiffs' father was depicted to the extent of 0-38.08 guntas and the said RTC is produced in the evidence and marked as Ex.P10. It is not in dispute that the present application is filed after 12 years. The trial Court has taken care of the said situation and allowed the application by imposing cost. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application cannot be allowed if - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 it is filed belatedly as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case of Radhika Devi referred supra by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the aforesaid case, the issue was with regard to whether the claim is barred by limitation or not. In the instant case, there is no change with regard to the relief sought in the plaint, hence, the question of limitation would not arise. This Court in the case of Smt.Gawradevi S. Orekondy referred supra has considered the effect of proviso under Order VI Rule 17 and held that due diligence is required to be seen. In the case on hand, the application filed by the plaintiffs accompanied with the affidavit indicate that by inadvertence, the extent of 29 guntas is mentioned in the plaint instead of 38.08 guntas and the said proposed amendment is based on the Ex.P10 RTC which is standing in the name of the father of the plaintiffs. Hence, I am of the considered view that the principle of due diligence - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 cannot be strictly applied to the case on hand. It is trite law that the amendment is required to be allowed as a matter of course if the amendment is sought at the pre-trial stage. In the case on hand, the amendment is sought after the commencement of the trial. Hence, the same is required to be allowed on terms. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the proposed amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The proposed amendment though delays the proceedings would not substantially cause any injustice to the other side as the petitioners would have a sufficient opportunity to defend the suit by filing additional written statement and putting forth all their contentions. 7. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the considered view that the proposed amendment would neither alter the nature of suit, nor alter the cause of action, nor it is barred by limitation. Though to some extent in the evidence of PW.1, he has admitted that the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 petitioners are the owners of 29 guntas of the land and they are in possession of 14½ guntas of the land, that evidence can be looked into by the trial Court at the time of passing the final judgment and decree and the petitioners can always take advantage of the same. The contention of the petitioners that the first amendment was allowed and the scope of the suit was reduced to 14½ guntas of land and the second amendment sought is by ignoring the first amendment raising the claim to the extent of 0-38.08 guntas. Such a plea is required to be rejected on the ground that those pleas are the technical pleas and the Court is required to look into the substantive right of the parties claimed in the suit. Hence, such a contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is accordingly rejected. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25544 W.P. No.1459/2020 ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of by upholding the impugned order of the trial Court except order of costs. ii) The respondents/plaintiffs shall pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioners/defendants. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20