- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 26441 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. DAKSHAYINI K. W/O. SRI GOPALA KRISHNA K. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS #442, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, 1ST STAGE INDUSTRIAL TOWN BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE - 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJASHEKHARA SEERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUM. RANI MANORAMA B. S. D/O. LATE SRI B. K. SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS #523, 3RD MAIN ROAD BSK 1ST STAGE, 1ST BLOCK, SRINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 050. 2. DR. M. MUNINARAYANAPA NO.2,S/O LATE SRI MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS #10, 1ST CROSS SOMESHWARA NAGAR JAYNAGAR 1ST BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. SEENAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01-08-2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.7012/2023 BY XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-8) VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.1. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.7012/2023 by XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and consequently, allow the said application, which was rejected by the trial Court. 3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 4. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has instituted a suit in O.S.No.7012/2023 against the respondents- defendants before the trial Court seeking following reliefs: "i. Declaring that the Plaintiff has 1/2 share in the schedule properties and putting the Plaintiff in physical possession of her 1/2 share in the schedule properties; ii. Declaring that the Absolute Sale Deed dt.16.09.2023, registered in Book No.1, bearing Document No.CMP-1-04676-2023- 24 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi (Charamarajapet), is not bind on the Plaintiffs; iii. Costs of the suit; iv. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity." 5. The said suit was defended by defendant No.1 by filing his written statement. When the matter was set down for adducing evidence, after framing of issues, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to carry out certain - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 amendments and incorporations in the plaint. The application IA.No.5 filed by the plaintiff for amendment to the plaint came to be rejected by the learned trial judge, which is called in question by the plaintiff in this petition. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the impugned order passed by the learned trial judge is illegal, perverse and arbitrary, and the same requires to be set aside. Consequently, the IA seeking amendment of incorporation of certain pleadings requires to be allowed. It is further contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is at the stage of the beginning of trial and evidence has not yet commenced; therefore, it is at pre-trial stage the issues are framed, and the matter is set down for adducing evidence by the plaintiff. At this stage the present application is filed by the plaintiff. 7. The amendment that is sought to be incorporated would not change the nature of the suit as no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 new cause of action is pleaded, and neither plaintiff is introducing any new case as the plaintiff has already pleaded that she is the adopted daughter and the defendants are at liberty to object the same. The same has not been considered properly in the teeth of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and the trial Court has mechanically rejected the same by holding that if the plaintiff is introducing a new cause of action, it alters the nature of the suit, which is impermissible, and also the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the amendment that is sought is not essential to determine the real questions and controversy. Therefore, it rejected the application. It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that all amendments are required to be allowed if it is the pre-trial stage, which may not cause any injustice or change the nature of the suit, and therefore he seeks to allow his petition. 8. Per contra learned counsel, appearing for the defendants, contends that the plaintiff is only trying to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 delay and protract the proceedings and has filed a frivolous application. Already the pleadings are available with regard to the adoption in the plaint. Therefore, the present amendment is not required, and it changes the nature of the suit and cause of action. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the defendants contends that the application be allowed and the plaintiff be permitted to carry out the amendment. But he may be directed to go on with the trial expeditiously as he is making deliberate attempts to drag on and prolong or protract the proceedings. Therefore it is contended that the defendants are aged more than 70 years and hence they are interested in seeing the outcome and result of the suit in the fag end of their life, which is now deliberately prolonged and protracted by the plaintiff by filing this present application. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendants. The fundamental - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 requirements for amendment of pleadings as contemplated under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to be considered by the trial Court. Order VI Rule 17 reads as under: "17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 11. The provision under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of CPC contemplates that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings alter or amend the pleadings at the request of the plaintiff. If it does not change the cause of action or cause any hardship, injury or injustice to the other side, the amendment in the general - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 circumstances shall be allowed. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 may not be applicable to the present case. Hence, the same is not dealt with. 12. It is generally held that all amendments of pleadings are to be allowed, so far as it does not create a bar for such amendment by way of any limitation, as far as it does not change the nature of the suit and it does not introduce a new case, so far as it is just and proper and necessary for deciding the real question and dispute of the suit. In the present case, it appears the plaintiff is not introducing any new case as the plaintiff has already pleaded that she is the adopted daughter in the plaint itself. He is now trying to introduce the notarized copy of the adoption deed, which she has already pleaded in her plaint. Therefore, I do not find any bar in the plaintiff carrying out the amendment in the pleadings as the suit is in the pre-trial stage and evidence is yet to commence. Under the circumstances, all such amendments before the trial commences, which do not change the nature of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 suit and does not cause injustice requires to be allowed so far as any admission already made by the plaintiff in the plaint is not erased or taken away by virtue of the present amendment, which is not the case of the defendant. Therefore, the amendments ought to have been allowed by the learned trial judge. 13. Learned counsel for the defendants fairly submits that the amendment application could be allowed and that the plaintiff be directed to go on with the matter expeditiously, and so also the trial Court to decide the matter expeditiously considering the fact that the defendants are aged more than 70 years and are in the evening of their life. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendants is quite appealing, and the same requires to be considered as in our country pursuant to the amendment being allowed, it is a tendency of the plaintiff to drag on the matter when the other side is aged to frustrate the claim of the defendants. Under the circumstances, an order is required to be passed for - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 expeditious disposal of the suit. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is allowed. 2. The impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the 11th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in OS.No.7012/2023 on IA.No.5 is hereby set aside. 3. IA.No.5 filed for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. The plaintiff shall carry out the amendment within a period of 14 days. 4. The trial Court is thereby directed to frame additional issues and dispose of the matter expeditiously. The trial Court shall impose costs on the parties seeking unnecessary adjournments more so for the reason that the defendants are aged more than 70 years. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53176 WP No. 26441 of 2025 5. The trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. The plaintiff shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants on the next date of hearing. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN,RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4