- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 3289 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SYED SHAKEEL AHAMED S/O S.A. SUBHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.31, KEELUKOTE EXTENSION KOLAR CITY-563 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UMESH B.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHAMMED MUSTAQ S/O SHEIK HYDER AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT DARGA SHAHEE MOHALLA KOLAR CITY-563 101 2. ABDUL WAZEER S/O ABDUL BASHEER AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT DARGA SHAHEE MOHALLA KOLAR CITY-563 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 21.11.2020 PASSED ON Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 I.A.NO.12 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, IN O.S.NO.377/2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR, VIDE AT ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. By the impugned order, in I.A.No.XII under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that there is a challenge to his title made by the defendant No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 did not file a written statement, however a challenge has been made by defendant No.2 about the ownership, identity and boundaries of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 'vacant site'. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the written statement filed by defendant No.2. 3. Despite notice being served on the respondents, there is no appearance on their behalf today. Given the pendency of the matter since a long period, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the petition. 4. As stated above, the record reflects that the plaint was filed on 20.05.2014 seeking injunction in respect of the schedule property being commercial vacant site, as extracted below: "Commercial Vacant site situated at Keelukote Extension, Kolar City Municipal Ward No.22, Kolar City, bearing V.P.Municipal Katha No.936, Assessment No.997, Site No.10, measuring East- West 15 Feet, North-South: 18 feet, bounded on:- East by Market Vacant place, West by Municipal Road, North by Site No.9, South by Municipal Road" 5. The written statement was filed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 17.12.2014 raising various objections including in respect of the title to the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 schedule property. It is apposite in this behalf to set out paragraph Nos.6 and 15 of the written statement below: "6. The allegations at para 4 of the plaint that Seenappa being absolute owner possession of the suit schedule property has sold the same in favour of Annaiahamma for valid consideration under registered sale deed dated 28-6-2006 and delivered possession of the said site are absolutely false and baseless. There is no dispute regarding the auction of site No.10 by the Municipality but there is serious dispute regarding boundaries, katha might have been changed in the name. of Annaiahamma in respect of site No.10. ** ** ** ** ** 15. The suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction in respect of a vacant site is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is serious dispute about the ownership, identity and the boundaries.’’ [Emphasis supplied] 6. The learned Trial Court has framed issues on 26.03.2015. Although the issues were not placed on record before the Court, a hard copy of the Trial Court record has been handed across to the Court. The issues - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 framed by the learned Trial Court on 26.03.2015 read as follows: "1.Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? 2.Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoying the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and earlier to it within the boundaries and measurements shown in the plaint schedule? 3.Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendants are denying his title and causing obstruction and interfering with his possession? 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration and injunction as sought for? 5.What order or decree?" 7. The record further reflects that the issues were recast by the learned Trial Court on 01.04.2019 as following: “ISSUES ARE RECASTED ON 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 1.Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property? 2.Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants are interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property? 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for? 4.What Order or decree?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 8. After the issues were reframed on 09.12.2019, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an additional prayer. The amendment sought is set out below: “PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS SOUGHT FOR: In relief column of the Plaint after relief (a) add: (aa) For declaration of Plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property." 9. The application was objected to by the contesting respondent No.2/defendant No.2. The learned Trial Court examined the application and found that the application was filed when the case was posted for cross-examination of DW1. It further gave a finding that no reasons were made out to allow the present application and that no due diligence was shown by the petitioner/plaintiff in filing the application, since the application was admittedly filed belatedly. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 10. The learned Trial Court has examined the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and Affidavit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and found that no grounds have been set out by the applicant in terms of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. No explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner either. The issues as recast by the learned Trial Court do not have an issue of declaration. 11. In addition, a finding was also given that the relief for declaration of title would also be barred by limitation, since the denial of the title was made in the year 2014. Thus, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 12. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC sets out that amendment should not be allowed once the trial in the matter has begun and reads as under: "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 questions in controversy between the parties: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 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." [Emphasis supplied] 13. It is no longer res integra that Courts should normally be liberal while adjudicating amendments, however where such amendment has been sought for after the trial has commenced, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC requires the applicant to show due diligence in asking for the amendment. 13.1. The petitioner/plaintiff has also been unable to show to this Court any document evidencing he exercised due diligence or give any reason for not filing the application within time. 14. A review of the record shows that the application has filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, which is I.A.No.12/2019 does not set out any averments or the reasons for the delay in filing such application. The only contention as set out in the application is that defendant has filed his written - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51137 WP No. 3289 of 2021 statement wherein, the title of the petitioner/plaintiff has been disputed. The Application filed on 09.12.2019, while the written statement was filed by defendant No.2 on 17.12.2014, five years later. 15. In any event, while the Issues as originally framed did reflect this issue as Issue No.1, the Issues were amended by the learned Trial Court and the Issues as recast on 09.12.2019 do not contain any issue qua ownership. 16. In these circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order which could require interference by this Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications if any stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JT/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA