- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30796 WP No. 8425 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 8425 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI PANCHAMUKHI NUTRIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED PVT. LTD., NON-GOVT. COMPANY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.21, 32, 33 AND 34, KIADB AREA, THUBINA KERE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA -571402 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. DIVAKAR K.N. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVCHARAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: MR PRASANNA K., S/O KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEELA KANTANA HALLI VILLAGE, ALUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-571428 PROPRIETOR OF GOKUL TREADING COM. SLV COMPLEX, VIVEKANANDA NAGARA MAIN ROAD, RAMANAGARA-244715 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MUDDURAJA N., ADVOCATE-ABSENT) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30796 WP No. 8425 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 29.09.2022 IN I.A VI PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANDYA IN O.S.NO.16/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for petitioner is present. None appears for the respondent. 2. Present petition is filed by petitioner who is plaintiff in O.S.No.16/2018 being aggrieved by; (i) the order dated 29.09.2022 by which application in I.A.No.VI filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint came to be rejected and (ii) the order dated 21.03.2023 by which application in I.A.VII filed under Section 114 read with section 151 of CPC seeking review of the order dated 29.09.2022 came to be rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30796 WP No. 8425 of 2023 3. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,16,403/- which is inclusive of principal due of Rs.22,37,435/- and interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 29.10.2015 to 29.10.2017 in a sum of Rs.10,73,968/- and notice charges of Rs.5,000/-. 4. The above application in I.A.VI filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment to paragraph 4 of the plaint. The amendment sought is as under: "1. Delete the words as mentioned in the plaint 6th line in Para No.4, Rs.98,40,545/- (Ninety eight Lakhs, Forty thousand, Five hundred and Forty five Rupees only) out of which he paid 76,03,110/- (Seventy six lakhs, Three thousand, one hundred and ten Rupees only) And add: "Rs.75,94,485/- (Seventy Five lakhs, Ninety four thousand, Four hundred and Eighty five) out of this the defendant paid of Rs.53,57,050/- (Fifty three lakhs, Fifty seven thousand and fifty)". 5. The aforesaid application came to be rejected by order dated 29.09.2022 on the premise that the evidence had already commenced and that allowing of such application would amount to withdrawal of admissions in pleading. Aggrieved by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30796 WP No. 8425 of 2023 the said order petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.21807/2022. 6. This Court by order dated 14.11.2022 disposed of the said writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the said order. Pursuant thereof petitioner preferred an application under Section 114 read with section 151 CPC (I.A.VII) on 04.02.2023. By impugned order dated 21.03.2023 the trial Court rejected the said application on the premise that even if it was an error in computation of amount, since the liability is seriously disputed by the defendant, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC would operate as a bar for amending the plaint, accordingly rejected the application for review. Hence the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the transaction between the parties is not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to quantum of outstanding amount being demanded by the plaintiff which is denied by the defendant. He submits that while narrating the facts at paragraph 4 of the plaint there was a typographical error in which instead of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30796 WP No. 8425 of 2023 showing a sum of Rs.75,94,485/- being the outstanding principal amount, a sum of Rs.98,40,545/- is mentioned and instead of showing Rs.53,57,050/- to be the amount paid by the defendant, a sum of Rs.76,03,110/- is shown as having been paid by the defendant. He submits in either of the situation the outstanding due of Rs.22,37,435/- would remain the same to which the suit is filed and the said amount would not change under any circumstances whatsoever. Therefore he submits when the original claim of the plaintiff remains unaltered no prejudice of any nature whatsoever would be caused to the defendant. As such, he submits that the trial Court was in error in not permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint in the first instance and thereafter to review its own order that too pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the second instance. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner further drawing attention of this Court to the document at Annexure-J produced along with writ petition which is already marked as Ex.P6 in the said suit, submits that at page No.1 of the said document, the closing balance is shown as Rs.54,75,660/- and at page No.2 of the said document the closing balance is shown as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30796 WP No. 8425 of 2023 Rs.43,64,885/-. He submits at the time of filing of the suit due to bonafide mistake the total sum of these two amounts was taken instead of taking the amount now sought to be substituted. He submits said error is apparent from Ex.P6 itself, as such no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 9. None appears for respondent. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. It is settled position of law that grant of application for amendment shall be subject to certain conditions namely; (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment. (ii) when the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; and (iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation. (Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through Lrs Vs S.K.Sarwagi and company (P) Ltd., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 364. 12. The amendment sought in the instant petition is only substitution of figure i.e., sum of Rs.75,94,485/- and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30796 WP No. 8425 of 2023 Rs.53,57,050/- to Rs.98,40,545/- and Rs.76,03,110/- respectively at paragraph 4 of the plaint on the premise of bonafide error in calculating the amounts. The suit document at Ex.P6 produced at Annexure-J to the writ petition supports the said contention. As rightly pointed by learned counsel for petitioner the suit claim in either of the situation would be an outstanding sum of Rs.33,16,403/- which includes principal amount of Rs.22,37,435/- and interest amount of Rs.10,73,968/- and notice charges of Rs.5,000/-. The original claim and the nature of the suit would not change and same would remain intact even after the amendment as sought for. 13. Amendment if allowed in the circumstances would not amount to withdrawal of admission as opined by the trial Court. In that view of the matter in the absence of any prejudice being caused to the defendant, this Court do not see any reason not to allow the request made by the plaintiff to amend paragraph 4 of the plaint as sought for. 14. The suit is stated to be at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and defendant is at liberty to file additional written statement and to lead rebuttal evidence if any. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30796 WP No. 8425 of 2023 With the above, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 29.09.2022 passed on I.A.VI and Order dated 21.03.2023 passed on I.A.VII in O.S.No.16/2018 are set aside. I.A.No.VI filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed. Petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to amend paragraph 4 of the plaint as sought for and shall file amended plaint within the time stipulated under law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10