- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45291 WP No. 6896 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 6896 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI PUTTAMADIAH S/O LATE DEVASHETTY (REPRESENTED BY LRS) P PADMANABHA S/O PUTTAMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.697, 17TH MAIN ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM DOUBLE ROAD CHAMARAJ MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK KUMAR GOWDA, ADV., FOR SRI NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADV.) AND: 1. D. MALLAIAH S/O LATE DEVASHETTY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. 2. M. KRISHNA S/O D. MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 3. KAVERI W/O M. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT D NO.1754 SITE NO.10, 4TH CROSS, BEHIND MARUTHI TENT ROAD, JANATHA NAGAR CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45291 WP No. 6896 of 2020 (BY SRI ADINARAYANA, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-3; WP ARRATED AGAINST R-1, V/O DTD:09.07.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2019 MADE ON I.A.NO.15, IN O.S.NO.992/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT MYSURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-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. Plaintiff is 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 06.07.2019 passed on IA.no.15 in O.S.No.992/2013 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Mysuru, vide Annexure-A. 2. Suit in O.S.No.992/2013 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Mysuru by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against defendant nos.1 to 3 who are respondent nos.1 to 3 in this petition. Defendant no.1 had filed written statement and opposed the suit claim. 3. When the suit was at the stage of arguments, IA.no.15 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.992/2013 under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45291 WP No. 6896 of 2020 Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to amend the schedule of the suit schedule property, by incorporating the words 'Site no.8' after deleting the words 'Site no.6', which is shown to be the southern boundary of the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendant by filing objection. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected IA.no.15, and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits, that proposed amendment is based on the rectification deed dated 16.08.2013 executed by the wife of the original plaintiff after the suit was filed. In the suit schedule property, it is mentioned that Site no.6 is situated towards the southern side of the suit schedule property, whereas actually Site no.8 is situated and this mistake has been rectified by executing a rectification deed by the wife of the plaintiff. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit, nor will the respondent be put to any hardship. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45291 WP No. 6896 of 2020 5. Though the matter was called twice, there is representation on behalf of the respondents. 6. Suit in O.S.No.992/2013 is filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction as against defendant nos.1 & 2 in respect of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, his wife - Smt. Shantha who was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property had executed a registered gift deed dated 12.04.2006 in his favour and on the strength of the said gift deed, he had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Alleging interference with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by defendant nos.1 to 3, he had filed O.S.No.992/2013 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against them. In the schedule given to the plaint in O.S.No.992/2013, it is stated that towards the southern side of the suit schedule property, Site no.6 is situated, and it appears that description of the suit schedule property is mentioned as per the registered gift deed dated 12.04.2006. 7. The present suit was filed on 20.07.2013. After filing of the suit, the wife of the plaintiff who had executed gift deed in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45291 WP No. 6896 of 2020 favour of the plaintiff on 12.04.2006, has executed a registered rectification deed dated 16.08.2013 correcting the boundary of the suit schedule property by mentioning that Site no.8 is situated towards the southern side of the property. However, the plaintiff who was aged 81 years, had not sought to amend the schedule of the plaint after execution of the rectification deed dated 16.08.2013 in his favour by his wife. After the death of original plaintiff, the son has come on record as his legal representative and the application in IA.no.15 was filed by the legal representative of the original plaintiff with a prayer to amend the schedule of the plaint by incorporating the words 'Site no.8' in place of the words 'Site no.6'. 8. In my considered opinion, the proposed amendment does not in any manner change the nature of the suit nor the cause of action. It is trite that the courts should be liberal while considering the applications filed seeking amendment of pleadings, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also for the purpose of enabling the courts to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In the present case, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45291 WP No. 6896 of 2020 has erred in dismissing IA.no.15. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following order: 9. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.07.2019 passed on IA.no.15 in O.S.No.992/2013 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Mysuru, is set aside. Consequently, the prayer in IA.no.15 is granted. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK