- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 14486 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHENDRA BAID S/O SRI MOHANLAL BAID AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 2. SMT. MEENA BAID W/O SRI MAHENDRA BAID AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 3. SRI DHARMENDRA BAID S/O SRI MOHANLAL BAID AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 4. SMT. BASU SHREE BIAD W/O SRI DHARMENDRA BAID AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS NO.50, 8TH MAIN ROAD KALYAN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.D. SURANA, ADV.) AND: SMT. H.S. PRATHIMA VIJAY KUMAR W/O SRI C.P. VIJAY KUMAR MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.43, 44, 45 1ST MAIN, PRASHANTHNAGAR EXTENSION, BSK 5TH STAGE ISRO LAYOUT BENGALURU -560 078. ...RESPONDENT Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 (BY SRI SRINATHA P, ADV.) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 23.03.2020 MADE ON I.A. NO.III/2019 IN O.S.NO.25083/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH NO.29), THE SAID ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER SHEET PRODUCED AT ANNX-E. 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 nos.1 to 4 are 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 12.03.2020 passed on IA.no.3/2019 in O.S.No.25083/2014 by the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. O.S.No.25083/2014 was filed by the respondent herein seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 13.09.2008 by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,47,623/- only. An alternative relief of directing the officers of the Court to execute the sale deed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 pursuant to the aforesaid sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff was also sought for in the said suit. 4. The contesting defendants have entered appearance and filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of recording further cross-examination of PW-1, on 27.08.2019 IA.no.3 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint. 5. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 26.09.2019 and as against the said order, the defendants had filed W.P.No.52981/2019 before this Court which was allowed on 16.01.2020 and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court to consider IA.no.3/2019 afresh. The Trial Court, thereafter, has passed the order impugned allowing IA.no.3/2019 and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the plaintiff intends to withdraw the admissions in the plaint as well as in her deposition as PW-1 by amending the plaint. The Trial Court has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Application seeking amendment of plaint is filed after PW-1 was extensively cross-examined on the admissions made by her regarding payment of money towards advance sale consideration under the agreement of sale, of which specific performance is sought. Since the amendment application is filed after the trial had commenced, the same is hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANDER KANTA BANSAL VS RAJINDER SINGH ANAND - (2008)5 SCC 117, VIDYABAI & ORS. VS PADMALATHA & ANR. - AIR 2009 SC 1433, JODHRAJ VS MRS. MAYA M.SHAH & OTHERS (WP.No.24682/2012 disposed of on 11.03.2013). 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the order impugned. 8. Perusal of the averments made in the plaint would go to show that plaintiff has pleaded that the total sale consideration of the suit schedule property as agreed under the agreement for sale dated 13.09.2008 is Rs.1,69,83,914/- and out of the said amount, plaintiff has paid totally a sum of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 Rs.1,57,39,877/- to the defendants on various dates as described in the body of the plaint, and balance sale consideration payable was only Rs.12,47,623/-. Even in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief, the averments made in the plaint about the total consideration and the amount paid to the defendants by the plaintiff as averred in the plaint has been reiterated. 9. PW-1 was extensively cross-examined with respect to the aforesaid aspects of the matter by the defendants and at the stage of further cross-examination of PW-1, IA.no.3/2019 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to delete certain sentences in paragraph no.9 and to incorporate the proposed paragraphs as found in the amendment application. 10. A reading of the proposed amendment along with the averments found in the plaint would go to show that the plaintiff intends to withdraw the statements made by her regarding the alleged payments made to the defendants under the agreement in question, and in its place, incorporate a totally new paragraph wherein the particulars of payments made towards advance sale consideration has been described. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 The date and amount paid as stated in the proposed paragraphs is totally different compared to the statements found in the plaint with regard to the alleged payment of advance sale consideration to the defendants. 11. By incorporating the proposed amendment, it appears that an attempt is made by the plaintiff to wriggle out of the statements earlier made by her in the plaint as well as during the course of her deposition as PW-1 and the same cannot be permitted. 12. The application was belatedly filed during the course of trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Kanta Bansal's case supra, at paragraphs 16 to 18, has observed as under: "16. The words “due diligence” have not been defined in the Code. According to Oxford Dictionary (Edn. 2006), the word “diligence” means careful and persistent application or effort. “Diligent” means careful and steady in application to one's work and duties, showing care and effort. As per Black's Law Dictionary (18th Edn.), “diligence” means a continual effort to accomplish something, care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given situation. “Due diligence” means the diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by a person who seeks to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. According to Words and Phrases by Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edn. 13-A) “due diligence”, in law, means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible. “Due diligence” means reasonable diligence; it means such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs. 17. It is clear that unless the party takes prompt steps, mere action cannot be accepted and file a petition after the commencement of trial. As mentioned earlier, in the case on hand, the application itself came to be filed only after 18 years and till the death of her first son Sunit Gupta, Chartered Accountant, had not taken any step about the so-called agreement. Even after his death in the year 1998, the petition was filed only in 2004. The explanation offered by the defendant cannot be accepted since she did not mention anything when she was examined as witness. 18. As rightly referred to by the High Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta [(2005) 12 SCC 1] this Court cautioned that delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings would also be a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing an application for amendment of the pleadings." 13. In Jodhraj's case supra, the coordinate bench of this Court in almost identical circumstances, at paragraph no.19, has observed as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 "19. In the affidavit, it is not stated that defendants had exercised due diligence or made efforts to verify their pleadings before commencement of trial. It is only after the case was set down for cross- examination of PW1 and learned counsel for defendants was repeatedly taking adjournments and persuading defendants to settle the matter, defendants requested their previous counsel to return the file along with ‘no- objection’ to engage a new counsel. It is specifically stated that learned counsel for defendants had given ‘no objection’ and file was returned on 26.02.2012. Thereafter, file was examined by present counsel. The defendants were shocked to learn that antecedent facts regarding agreement of sale dated 12.03.2007, entered into between plaintiff and defendants in respect of suit schedule properties were not stated in the written statement. Thus, it is apparent on the face of record that defendants exercised so called due diligence after 26.02.2012, whereas trial had commenced on 02.09.2011. 14. The proposed amendment relates to the payments made under the agreement for sale by the plaintiff to the defendants. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff intends to introduce a totally new case when the suit was at the stage of further cross-examination of PW-1. Due diligence was not at all proved by the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in allowing IA.no.3/2019 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52047 WP No. 14486 of 2020 filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 15. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2020 passed on IA.no.3/2019 in O.S.No.25083/2014 by the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, IA.no.3/2019 is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK