- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 50624 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. P.D. NALINAKSHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O H.T. VENKATESH R/AT NO.2283/1, IN SY. NO.49/2 NEXT TO GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RING ROAD, HINKAL, MYSORE - 570 017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.R. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI A. PAPANNA S/O LATE ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS EX-PANCHAYAT CHAIRMAN HINKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 017. 2. SRI ANDANI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O. MASTI GOWDA R/O. HINKAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE - 570 017. 3. SRI H.C. RAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. SRI. CHANNE GOWDA R/AT NO. 816, BEHIND CHALLENGER BAR HINKAL VILLAGE MYSORE TALUK Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 MYSORE - 570 017. 4. SRI NEELAKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE MALLAPPA R/O. HINKAL VILLAGE MARIGUDI BEEDI MYSORE TALUK MYSORE - 570 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. ANANDA, ADV., FOR R-1; R-2 & R-3 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; V/O DTD 06.07.2021, NOTICE TO R-4 H/S) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2019 PASSED IN I.A.NO.12 FILED BY THE R-1/PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON THE FILE OF O.S.NO.521/2006 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC (JR DN) AT MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant no.4 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 09.08.2019 passed on IA.no.12 filed on behalf of respondent no.1/plaintiff in O.S.No.521/2006, by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 3. Respondent no.1 herein has filed O.S.No.521/2006 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 27.09.1991. 4. Initially, only respondent no.2 herein was arrayed as defendant in the said suit. Subsequently, applications were filed to implead the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property from defendant no.1, and defendant nos.2 to 4 were impleaded in O.S.No.521/2006. 5. IA.no.12 was filed in O.S.No.521/2006 on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating paragraph no.10(a) immediately after paragraph no.10 and also to incorporate additional prayer no.1(a) immediately after prayer no.1. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court by the order impugned, has allowed IA.no.12 with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant no.4 is before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that defendant no.4 was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 impleaded in O.S.No.521/2006 in the year 2012. Thereafter, defendant nos.2 to 4 have filed written statement in the month of June 2012 itself. After the trial had commenced in the suit, IA.no.12 is filed seeking to amend the plaint. In view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the application could not have been allowed by the Trial Court. The application was not only belated, but the material on record would go to show that due diligence has not been proved by the plaintiff. He also submits that the proposed prayer is barred by limitation, and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing IA.no.12. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY HATHISING SHAH VS GITABEN PARSHOTTAMDAS MUKHI - AIR 2019 SC 1119. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit, the proposed amendment is very much necessary. Defendant nos.2 to 4 are the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property and in the event the suit is decreed, unless the proposed prayer is granted, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 plaintiff would not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree. He submits that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. Mere delay in filing the application, cannot be the sole ground to reject the amendment application if it is found that the proposed amendment is required to decide the real controversy between the parties. He submits that the Trial Court has allowed the application subject to costs and the other side has been compensated. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner has filed O.S.No.521/2006 before the jurisdictional Civil Court against respondent no.2 herein viz., Andani Gowda seeking the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.09.1991. Andani Gowda who had appeared before the Trial Court, had filed written statement contending that he had executed sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant nos.2 & 3, and therefore, an application was filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 implead the subsequent purchasers as defendant nos.2 & 3 in the suit. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. 9. It appears that thereafter, plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein came to know that defendant nos.2 & 3 had executed a further sale deed on 04.02.2005 in favour of defendant no.4 in respect to the suit schedule property and it is under these circumstances, yet another application was filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, to implead defendant no.4 in the suit. Material on record would go to show that defendant no.4 was impleaded in the suit in the year 2012, and thereafter, defendant nos.2 to 4 had filed a common written statement on 18.06.2012 opposing the suit claim. 10. The Trial Court has, thereafter, framed issues based on the rival pleadings and when the suit was at the stage of recording the plaintiff's evidence, IA.no.12 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff with a prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating paragraph no.10(a) immediately after paragraph no.10 and also by incorporating prayer no.1(a) after prayer no.1. The proposed paragraph no.10(a) and proposed prayer no.1(a) reads as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 "10(a) It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 has sold the schedule property illegally in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 as per the registered sale deed, dated 23.04.2002, as per book No.1, volume 27/33 page 844. It is further submitted that inturn defendants 2 and 3 have sold the schedule property to the defendant no.4 under registered sale deed dated 4.2.2005. As per book No.1 MYN-1-1409/2004-05 C.D.No. MYND 35. The act of the defendants is highly illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. It is further submitted even that even though the defendants 1 to 3 are aware of the existence of the contract of sale, have sold the schedule property and hence, the same is not binding on the plaintiff and it has to be declared as null and void and inoperative in law. The documents produced by the plaintiff clearly reflect the true facts. It is submitted without canceling the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and first defendant the transaction entered into between defendant 2 to 4 have nullity in law and also not enforceable in law, because it is behind the back of the plaintiff." "1(a) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the sale made by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and inturn the sale made by the defendants 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 11. From a reading of the proposed paragraph and proposed prayer which is sought to be incorporated in the plaint, it is apparent that in the proposed paragraph no.10(a), plaintiff has narrated about the sale of the suit schedule property by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 & 3, and thereafter, by defendant nos.2 & 3 in favour of defendant no.4, and in proposed prayer no.1(a), the plaintiff has sought to declare the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 & 3 and inturn the sale deed executed by defendant nos.2 & 3 in favour of defendant no.4, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. 12. 12. In my considered opinion, the proposed amendment does not in any way change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. The proposed amendment is very much necessary not only for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, but also to decide the real controversy which arises for consideration in the suit. 13. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, in the event the suit is decreed, in the absence of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 relief sought for in the proposed amendment, the plaintiff would not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURENDAR KUMAR SHARMA VS MAKHAN SINGH - (2009)10 SCC 626, has held that wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. Even if such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. 15. In Vijay Hathising Shah's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.10 has observed as under: "10. In our view, the Trial Court was right in rejecting the application. This we say for more than one reason. First, it was wholly belated; Second, respondent No.1(plaintiff) filed the application for amendment of the plaint when the trial in the suit was almost over and the case was fixed for final arguments; and Third, the suit could still be decided even without there being any necessity to seek any amendment in the plaint. In our - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 view, amendment in the plaint was not really required for determination of the issues in the suit." 16. From a reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had found that the suit would be still decided even without there being any necessity to seek amendment in the plaint. However, the same is not the fact situation in the present case. The suit cannot be effectively decided in the present case in the absence of proposed amendment. The judgment in Vijay Hathising Shah's case supra, therefore, cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a ground that the proposed prayer is barred by limitation. The said question is left open to be decided by the Trial Court based on the rival pleadings of the parties. 18. The Trial Court vide the order impugned while allowing IA.no.12 has imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- on the plaintiff. In my considered view, the cost imposed is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced having regard to the inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47838 WP No. 50624 of 2019 application seeking amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, the following order: 19. Writ petition is dismissed. The order passed by the Trial Court on IA.no.12 in O.S.No.521/2006 is confirmed. However, the cost imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, instead of Rs.2,000/- and the same shall be paid by the plaintiff to defendant no.4 before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK