- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28818 WP No. 21649 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 21649 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. RINITH M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O RAKESH M R R/AT No. 1225, 3RD CROSS GANGE ROAD, G & H BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSURU - 570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARINATH M.S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI RAKESH M R AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE RANJE GOWDA R/AT No. 217, 2ND STAGE OPP. DENTAL COLLEGE HASSAN TOWN - 573 201. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE IIIRD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU IN O.S.No.42/2022 IN DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.30 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28818 WP No. 21649 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved with the orders passed on I.A.No.30 in O.S.No.42/2022 dated 16.01.2025 wherein an application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the pleadings is dismissed, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The plaintiff has originally filed the suit to declare the sale deed as null and void. On 20th April an amendment is sought whereby the petitioner had sought for a relief directing the defendant to remit the sale proceeds received by the defendant vide sale deed dated 09.03.2022 to the plaintiff and to direct the defendant to handover the jewels belonging to the plaintiff kept in the locker. In the said plaint it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the sister of the plaintiff has invested Rs.96,58,900/- to the business and the plaintiff has given Rs.36,38,000/- in cash to the defendant to carry out the business. The defendant has not invested any money in the business. Further, at the initial stage the business was going good and the defendant out of the profit gained from the business has purchased the B schedule property. The entire amount has been given by the plaintiff in person and also from the partnership account. In actual the plaintiff is the absolute - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28818 WP No. 21649 of 2025 owner of the B schedule property only the documentation was done in the name of the defendant. 3. In the light of the said pleadings, the Court had framed the issues as long back as on 02.03.2023. On an issue with regard to the Court fee, when the Court fee has to be paid on an amount of Rs.45,50,000/- which is the sale consideration in the said sale deed, at that point of time the plaintiff had come up with the present application seeking amendment of the pleadings stating that plaintiff has contributed only an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- but not the entire sale consideration as such the Court fee will be paid on Rs.12,00,000/- and she will restrict the claim to Rs.12,00,000/-. The said application came to be dismissed by the Court way of order impugned. While dismissing the same, the Court had observed that the pleadings that is sought to be added or inserted by para 36(a) and substitution of prayer (a) are totally contrary to the pleadings made at para 16 of the plaint. Further, the prayer proposed to be replaced at prayer "a" is also quite contrary to the earlier prayer and pleadings and the proposed amendment totally amounts to introduction of new facts and case by the plaintiff. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28818 WP No. 21649 of 2025 When the plaintiff inspite of repeated directions issued by the Court had failed to pay the Court fee and paid only an amount of Rs.72,150/- which is not a proper Court fee and at that stage he has come up with the application seeking amendment of the plaint introducing new case which is not permissible and if the same is allowed it would cause prejudice to the defendant and accordingly, dismissed IA seeking amendment of the plaint. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that when the plaintiff is restricting his claim for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- the Court cannot have any objection and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not a working woman and it is very difficult for her to pay the Court fee as per the amount in the sale deed. As such she has restricted it to Rs.12,00,000/- and the Court ought to have allowed the application. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material on record. 6. The first prayer that is sought is with regard to cancellation. Then immediately amendment petition is filed and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28818 WP No. 21649 of 2025 now by way of amendment as it is the case of the plaintiff that she has given the entire amount and basing on that he has purchased the property, she sought for the relief as per prayer (a) in the prayer portion and even the entire pleadings also supporting the case that she has also given the entire amount and accordingly the defendant has filed his written statement and the issues were framed on 02.03.2023. 7. After the amendment to the CPC, under Order 6 Rule 17 amendment is sought after the commencement of the trial, it is the duty of the plaintiff to aver and prove that inspite of due diligence these facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court and it is also settled law by allowing an amendment, the defence which is already available to the defendant cannot be taken away and contrary pleadings cannot be introduced by way of amendment. In this case all the exceptions where amendment cannot be allowed are present. At one stretch it is stated that the entire amount is given by the plaintiff and now she states that only Rs.12,00,000/- is contributed. These kind of contrary pleadings cannot be allowed and the Court had - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28818 WP No. 21649 of 2025 rightly dismissed the application and this Court finds no merits to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All I.As in the writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13