- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 5133 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVANNA S/O SRI. GADDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO.59/2, AKSHAY COMPLEX, 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI.N.T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. S.VENKATESHWARA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBBARAJU, RESIDENT OF 687/7, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHASHANK KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, AT BANGALORE (CCH-74) IN OS. NO.25207/2015 AT ANNEXURE-E ON I.A NO.5. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: High Court of Karnataka Date: 2025.11.22 11:05:36 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order dated 21.10.2022 in O.S.No.25207/2015 passed by the Learned LXXIII Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned order”). By the Impugned order, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The predecessor Bench of this Court had by an order dated 16.06.2023 passed a direction keeping the proceedings before the Trial Court in abeyance. The order has continued as is till today. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit before the Trial Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, henchmen and such other persons acting on their behalf from causing any kind of interference or obstruction to the plaintiff’s peaceful and lawful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Survey No.664, situated at Gayathrinagar Park, 3rd main road, Vyalikaval, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, an application came to be filed for amendment of the plaint, in view of the fact that the details with respect of title chain to the suit property had not been placed on record. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the typographical error has also crept in the plaint which he had sought to amend by this application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. K.K.Modi (Lakshmanan, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 J.)1 to submit that the Courts should refrain from going into the merits of the case or the correctness or the falsity of the amendment sought for while allowing or dismissing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the title of the plaintiff is not disputed. He further submits that the application fails to set out as to why the petitioner has filed this amendment application at this belated stage. Relying on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, it is contended that the petitioner has not stated why this amendment could not have been sought for earlier. 6. The record reflects that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent/defendants seeking to refrain them from interfering or obstructing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the proceedings 1 (2006) 4 SCC 385 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 before the Trial Court, an application for amendment of the pleadings came to be filed by the petitioner. It is not disputed by the parties that the trial has not yet commenced. The settled law with respect to applications for amendment of the pleadings is that ordinarily amendments are to be allowed, except where they change the nature of the suit or proceedings or cause prejudice to the opposite party. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others2, while discussing amendments to pleadings held as follows: 11. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case, let us consider the law relating to the amendments of pleadings. 11.1. The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das3. it was held as under: 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615 3 (2008) 8 SCC 511 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 “16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these a real so well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR1957SC363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause himan injury which could not be compensate din costs. [Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar (1990) 1 SCC 166.]” 11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,4 after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:- (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the 4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if – (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time- barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are– (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to setup an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.” [Emphasis supplied] 8. In his application for amendment, the petitioner has stated that at the time of filing of the suit the source of his title and possession have not been stated in detail in the plaint and it is relevant for the petitioner/plaintiff to state the same. It is further stated that the trial is yet to commence and in spite of due diligence these facts could not be pleaded earlier. 9. The learned Trial Court has examined the application and given a finding that the material particulars of the earlier suit or the title chain are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present case. It is further held by the learned Trial Court that the amendments are found not necessary for just determination of the suit. 10. This Court has examined the amendments that have been sought through the application. The paragraphs - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 2A & 2B set out the details of the purchase of the suit property and its title chain. Para 2C sets out that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property prior to its sale. Para 2D refers to the attempts of the defendants to interfere with the possession of the property. While there is another amendment at paragraph. 10.1. The amendments sought do not withdraw any admissions nor raise any time-barred claim or change the nature of the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is also unable to show the Court as to how this amendment would prejudice him. 11. Given the aforesaid and the fact that the amendment has been made prior to the commencement of trial, the taking of a hyper-technical approach by the learned trial Court, in view of the settled law, is not justified. 12. In view thereof and what is stated above, this Court passes the following directions: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45872 WP No. 5133 of 2023 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 21.10.2022 in O.S.No.25207/2015 passed by the Learned LXXIII Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, at Bangalore is set aside; (iii) The application for amendment filed by the petitioner is allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within two weeks. (iv) The parties shall file the amended pleadings within a period of three months from today. Neither party shall take any unnecessary adjournments before the Trial Court in the proceedings. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22