- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33793 WP No. 33163 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 33163 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. POORNIMA THEATRE PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.20, 1ST CROSS JC ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED GENERAL MANAGER C. CHANDRASHEKAR UNDER COMPANIES ACT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JYOTHI S. KEMPAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAVIO D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. LATE JOSEPH D'SOUZA D-103, PRIDE APARTMENT BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BILEKAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 24.10.2024 (ANNX-E) PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-12) BANGALORE DISMISSING IA-1/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO.8164/2018 AND ALLOW THE IA -1/2024 AND ETC,. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33793 WP No. 33163 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Jyothi S. Kempagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.S. Prasanna Kumar, and Sri B.N. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant writ petition is filed by the defendant, challenging the order in I.A.No.1/2024 in O.S.No.8164/2018, dated 24.10.2024, passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2.1 For convenience, the parties are referred to herein according to their respective ranks before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed the original suit seeking eviction of the defendant and delivery of vacant physical possession of the schedule property, as well as recovery of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33793 WP No. 33163 of 2024 arrears of rent and mesne profits. The defendant filed a written statement on 12.07.2019. The plaintiff has completed the recording of evidence. When the suit had reached the stage of recording the defendant’s evidence, I.A.No.1/2024 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking to amend the written statement. The trial Court, noting that the proposed amendment was sought after the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence and that it was intended to delay the proceedings, rejected the application. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Smt. Jyothi S. Kempagoudar, learned counsel for Sri G.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, submits that the written statement was filed without the opportunity to examine the records produced along with the plaint. It is further submitted that, upon later perusal of the suit documents, it was revealed that the plaintiff is not the actual owner of the suit schedule property as described in the plaint. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33793 WP No. 33163 of 2024 Consequently, the amendment to the written statement became necessary to correctly identify the schedule property. It is submitted that the defendant is entitled to seek relief of adverse possession and that, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the proposed amendment to the written statement is warranted. 5. On the other hand, Sri B.N. Jayadeva, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent, submits that the defendant has already taken the plea of adverse possession in his written statement, and allowing the proposed amendment to include a different property would alter the very nature of the suit. Learned counsel further submits that the application for amendment, filed after the completion of the plaintiff’s evidence, is intended solely to delay the proceedings. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2018, seeking relief of eviction, arrears - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33793 WP No. 33163 of 2024 of rent, and mesne profits. The defendant filed the written statement on 12.07.2019. Subsequently, the plaintiff completed the recording of evidence, and when the suit had reached the stage of recording the defendant’s evidence, the application for amendment was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on perusal of the suit documents, it was noticed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property, and therefore, a prayer for adverse possession was necessary, accordingly, the amendment was proposed to raise such contention and to correct the description of the suit schedule property. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, however, untenable. 7. Paragraph 8 of the written statement clearly indicates that the defendant has taken the plea of adverse possession by disputing the title of the plaintiff. Further, the proposed amendment, which seeks to include an altogether different property, would, no doubt, alter the very nature of the suit. While the plaintiff seeks eviction of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33793 WP No. 33163 of 2024 the suit schedule property, it is open for the defendant to establish his rights adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. As rightly observed by the trial Court, insofar as the additional property is concerned, the defendant has a separate remedy, which cannot be agitated in the pending suit. 8. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. There is no error in the order of the trial Court warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is rejected. 9. Considering that the suit was filed in the year 2018, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12