- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.53592 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI LOKANATH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O C. RAMANNA R/AT NO.413, 6TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI L. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS S/O L. SHIVAPPA ARUNODAYA TAILORS 4TH CROSS, (LEFT SIDE), MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. 2. SRI. THYAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O SRI L. SHIVAPPA NO.37, GREEN HOUSE ADARSHA NAGAR, 1ST CROSS NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. 3. SRI. S. ANANDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 S/O SRI. L. SHIVAPPA, NO.D-28, HOUSING UNIT, KOLLAMPALAYAM, ERODE-638 002 TAMILNADU. 4. SRI. S. SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O SRI L. SHIVAPPA NO.5, 2ND CROSS MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. 5. SRI. S. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI L. SHIVAPPA, ARUNODAYA TAILORS, NO.5, 2ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. 6. SRI. S. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O SRI L. SHIVAPPA, ARUNODAYA TAILORS, NO.5, 2ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. 7. SRI. S. BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SRI L. SHIVAPPA, ARUNODAYA TAILORS, NO.5, 2ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. 8. SRI. S. ARUN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI L. SHIVAPPA, ARUNODAYA TAILORS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 NO.5, 2ND CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. 9. 9(a). 9(b). 9(c). 9(d). 9(e). SRI. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA NO.414/9, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010 SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMT. BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O. LATE RANGAPPA, SRI DHANANJAYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE RANGAPPA SRI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE RANGAPPA SMT. DHANALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O. LATE RANGAPPA SMT. MEENA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS D/O. LATE RANGAPPA RESPONDENT NOS.9(a) TO 9(e) ARE RESIDING AT NO.419/9 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. P. VARALAKSHMI NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R.2, R.4 TO R.8; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 SRI RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR P'SD LRS. OF DECEASED R.9 I.E. R.9 (a TO e) ; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R.1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.06.2022; NOTICE TO R.3 IS DESPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.09.2024. THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2018, PASSED ON I.A.6 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC., IN O.S. NO.22/2014, PASSED BY THE 30TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, CCH.NO.31, PRODUCED AT 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 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:- "a) For a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the order dated 05.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.6 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.22/2014, passed by the 30th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, CCH.No.31, produced at Annexure "A". b) Costs of the Petition.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 2. Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.01.2005 and supplementary deed dated 19.05.2006. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 9 contested the proceedings by denying the averments made in the plaint. It is submitted that the petitioner entered the witness box, filed an affidavit and examined himself as PW-1. However, before cross examination, he filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate certain later events which are taken place between the parties. It is submitted that the petitioner seeks to incorporate paragraph No.15(a) to 15(d) and additional prayers in the plaint. It is also submitted that in these paragraphs the petitioner intend to bring on record is that during the pendency of the suit, the property in question was the subject matter of the suit between defendant Nos.1 to 8 and 9 and the said suit came to be decreed and sale deed came to be executed on 30.03.2013. Hence, he seeks to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 include additional prayer to declare that the sale deed dated 30.03.2013 is not binding on the rights of the petitioner. It is submitted that the relief sought through the proposed amendment is the consequential relief and if the petitioner succeeds in proving the case before the trial Court with regard to specific performance even in the absence of such additional prayers, decree for specific performance would inherently cover the relief. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the proposed amendment is allowed. It is submitted that the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that there was no due diligence on part of the petitioner in filing the application and that the application filed for an amendment would change the nature of the suit from specific performance to the declaratory relief. The said finding are contrary to the settled position of law as the later prayer sought by the petitioner is a consequential relief. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 3. Per contra, Sri.Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.9(a) to 9(e) vehemently contends that the petitioner despite fully knowing well, delayed filing application until the trial is commenced and after three years from the commencement of the trial, filed the present application. It is submitted that the petitioner is well aware about the pending suit between defendant No.9 and defendant Nos.1 to 8. It is submitted that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no due diligence on part of the petitioner and rejected the application. It is submitted that the application for amendment cannot be allowed mechanically. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.REVANNA v. ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS1, and contend that the application for amendment cannot be allowed once the trial is commenced and hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 1 2019 4 SCC 332 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Meticulously perused the materials available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 5. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.22/2014 seeking relief of specific performance and sought to enforce the agreement to sell executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 on 19.01.2005 and supplementary deed dated 19.05.2006. The defendants denied the execution of the agreement of sale. Defendant No.9 has also denied the case of the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The petitioner entered the witness box adduced the evidence. Thereafter, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the plaint and also sought for additional relief. The said application was opposed by the defendants, which came to be rejected by the trial Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 on the ground that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the case and application is filed belatedly and allowing the application would change the nature of the suit. I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application. No doubt the application was filed just after commencement of the trial, in other words, the petitioner filed an affidavit and examined himself as PW-1 and he has not been cross- examined by the defendants and also filed an application at the initial stage of the trial. Hence, the observation of the trial Court that the application was filed belatedly, may not be correct. 7. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner was well aware about the filing of the suit by the defendant No.9 against the defendant Nos.1 to 8 is a matter of fact. The petitioner, in the plaint had made a reference with regard to the aforesaid suit. The contention of the petitioner is that in the supplementary deed dated 19.05.2006 itself there is a mention with regard to the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 filing of the suit and the defendants had agreed that after closure of the said suit, they would execute the agreement. Now the petitioner is seeking an additional prayer that the sale deed dated 30.03.2013 is not binding on the petitioner, which is the consequential prayer to the main relief sought in the plaint and to support the said prayer, the petitioner intends to bring on record the chronology of events taken place in the suit filed by the defendant No.9 against the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and execution of the sale deed in the execution proceedings. In my considered view, the said chronology of events would assist the Trial Court in deciding the case of the petitioner in its proper perspective as the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. The Trial Court is required to take note of all the events taken place between the parties in the present suit as well as the suit filed by the defendant No.9 against the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and the execution proceedings while considering the relief sought in the plaint. Hence, the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 contrary contention urged by the respondent that there is a delay in filing an application for amendment and there is no due diligence, may not strictly apply to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand. There is no dispute with regard to the preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.REVANNA referred supra. However, the said principle cannot be strictly applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as the petitioner had made a reference of filing of another suit by the defendant No.9 against the defendant Nos.1 to 8 in the plaint and the said reference is found in the alleged supplement deed dated 19.05.2006. Hence, I am of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the amendment application is allowed. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25233 WP No. 53592 of 2018 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 05.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.22/2014 by the XXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.6 is allowed. The amendment sought shall come into effect from today. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25