- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 10504 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI C. VENKATESH S/O LATE CHIKKA YELLAPPA AGED 56 YEARS NO.78 'VRUSHABADRI NILAYA' HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD KAVERINAGAR (VADDARAPALYA) HORAMAVA POST BENGALURU - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI VISHNU M.S, ADV., FOR SRI SEENAPPA K, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. KALYANI GOPINATH W/O. D S GOPINATH AGED 53 YEARS R/AT. NO.16/2, OPP.PHILLIPS (DEFENCE QUARTERS) SNT STREET, ULSOOR BENGALURU - 560 008. 2. SRI D.S. GOPINATH S/O. K.T. DORAISWAMY AGED 62 YEARS R/AT. NO.16/2, OPP.PHILLIPS (DEFENCE QUARTERS) SNT STREET, ULSOOR BENGALURU - 560 008. 3. SRI NAGARAJAPPA S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/OF KAVERINAGAR Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 VADDARAPALYA HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD HORAMAVU POST, BANGALURU - 560 043. 4. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/OF. KAVERINAGAR VADDARAPALYA, HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD HORAMAVU POST BENGALURU - 560 043. 5. SMT. HEMAVATHI S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/OF KAVERINAGAR VADDARAPALYA HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU POST BENGALURU - 560 043. 6. SRI DEVERAJ S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/OF. KAVERINAGAR VADDARAPALYA HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU POST BENGALURU - 560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JANARDHANA G, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2; V/O/D 26.05.2023, NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-6 IS D.W) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEUXRE A THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/03/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXIV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED IN OS NO 11300/2006 AND BY ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 25.03.2023 passed on application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff in OS No.11300/2006 by the Court of XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein has filed OS No.11300/2006 before the jurisdictional Court at Bengaluru, seeking for the following reliefs:- "i) declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of 'A' & 'B' Schedule Properties; ii) grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants whoever claiming under them not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs; and ii)(a) If for any reason, this Hon'ble Court were to come to the conclusion that the alleged site No.17 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 claimed by Defendant No.1 comes within the portion of Suit 'A' Schedule property, then this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Defendant No.1 to handover vacant possession to the Plaintiff and grant for decree for possession of the Suit 'A' Schedule property to the Plaintiff;" 4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a detailed written statement opposing the suit claim. In the said suit, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff with a prayer to permit the plaintiff to amend the prayer Column (ii)(a). The proposed amendment reads as follows:- "In prayer column ii)(a) replace the words, i.e.,, Suit Schedule 'A' Property (recited at two places) and its place add as "Suit Schedule 'B' Property". 5. The said application was opposed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the application and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that in the affidavit filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 in support of the application, it is clearly stated that by typographical mistake, in the prayer column (ii)(a) instead of the words ‘Suit schedule 'B' property', it was wrongly typed as ‘Suit schedule 'A' property’. The proposed amendment in any way does not change the nature of the suit nor the cause of action. He submits that the main prayer in the suit is to declare the plaintiff as the owner of suit schedule A and B properties and in the event, the said prayer is granted, if the proposed amendment is not granted, the relief in prayer (ii)(a) is rendered otiose. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting defendants has opposed to prayer made in the application. He submits that though in the affidavit, it is mentioned that it is a typographical error, factually it is incorrect. The suit is at the last stage. Commissioner appointed in the suit has already identified the suit schedule properties and filed a report. Only in order to get over the said Report, the present application is filed. He submits that the prayer which is now sought to be made is barred by limitation and therefore, the Trial Court was justified - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 in rejecting the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Perusal of the prayers made in the suit would go to show that the first prayer by the plaintiff is to declare him as the absolute owner of suit schedule A and B properties and the second prayer is to grant permanent injunction as against the defendants or anybody claiming under them in respect of the said properties. The next prayer i.e., prayer No.(ii)(a) is to direct the defendant No.1 to hand over suit schedule A property to the plaintiff in the event, the Court comes to a conclusion that the alleged Site No.17 claimed by defendant No.1 comes within the portion of suit schedule A property. In the proposed amendment, the plaintiff has prayed to delete the word 'Suit Schedule 'A' property' found in the prayer (ii)(a) and to insert the words 'Suit Schedule 'B' property'. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is categorically mentioned that the said mistake had taken place due to a typographical error and after coming to know about the same, immediately the present application was filed. It is relevant to note here that plaintiff has sought for declaration of his title in respect of Suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 Schedule A as well as Suit Schedule B properties. The relief sought for in Prayer No.(ii)(a) is consequential to the relief of declaration which is sought for by the petitioner. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the event the Trial Court grants the relief of declaration sought by the petitioner and if the proposed amendment is not allowed, then virtually relief sought for in prayer (ii)(a) would be rendered otiose. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another - (2022) 16 SCC 1, has observed that the Courts should not be hyper technical while considering the application seeking amendment and in normal circumstances, unless the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, the Courts should be liberal in allowing the prayer made for amendment. 10. Learned counsel for the contesting defendants has submitted that if the proposed amendment is allowed, the prayer would relate to seeking possession of suit schedule B property, which is barred by limitation. It is made clear that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 question of limitation with regard to the relief sought for in prayer (ii)(a) is left open to be decided by the Trial Court. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in the case of B. K. Narayana Pillai vs. Parameswaran Pillai and Another - (2000) 1 SCC 712, that if any application seeking amendment is filed belatedly, which would cause inconvenience to the defendants, the prayer made in the application can be allowed by appropriately compensating the defendants. 12. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. Accordingly, the following order:- 13. The writ petition is allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-. The order dated 25.03.2023 passed on application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff in OS No.11300/2006 by the Court of XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set-aside and consequently, the prayer made in the said application is allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43517 WP No. 10504 of 2023 14. The cost imposed shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. It is needless to state that the defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement and if necessary to lead additional evidence. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12