- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45671 WP No. 2388 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 2388 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT PUTTAMMA WIFE OF ANNAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO HAGARE VILLAGE, MADNALLY HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN - 587 216. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMAN NALINA LINGESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. N J SHANKAR SON OF LATE JAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. SHRI. N.J. MANJU SON OF LATE JAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S) BOTH RESIDING AT NO HAGARE VILLAGE, SHANTALA NAGARA, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN - 587 216. 2(A). SHRI. N.J. SHANKAR S/O LATE JAVARAPPA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45671 WP No. 2388 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT HAGARE VILLAGE, SHANTALA NAGARA, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN - 587 216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R1 - TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 04.11.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELUR HASSAN ANNX-E IN O.S. NO. 31/2010, ON I.A.NO.10 OR ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.12.2023 passed on I.A No.10 in O.S No.31/2010 by the Civil Judge and JMFC at Belur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45671 WP No. 2388 of 2024 3. Suit in O.S No.31/2010 is filed by the petitioner herein before the Jurisdictional Court of Civil Judge at Belur in Hassan District seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. 4. The contesting defendants have filed written statement and have opposed the suit claim. 5. I.A No.10 was filed in O.S No.31/2010 on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code with a prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating the proposed paragraph No.3(a) immediately after paragraph number 3. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection and the Trial Court vide order impugned has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that the proposed amendment is to bring on record the history of flow of title of the suit schedule property which according to the plaintiff is part and parcel of the property bearing survey No.58. He - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45671 WP No. 2388 of 2024 submits that Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition. He submits that application was filed belatedly when the suit was at the stage of argument and therefore in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application. The plaintiffs have not proved their due deligency and therefore writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Perusal of the material on record go to show that plaintiff claims right, title and possession of the suit schedule property which is a site under a registered sale deed dated 26.03.1998, executed in her favour by Sri. H.S. Ramachandra. The suit in O.S No.31/2010 was decreed earlier and as against the said judgment and decree, the defendants had filed R.A No. 23/2017 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Belur and R.A No.23/2017 was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court with a direction to afford opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence and decide the matter afresh. It - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45671 WP No. 2388 of 2024 appears that after remand, both the parties have produced additional evidence and also got marked additional documents. 9. I.A No.10 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 20.11.2023, when the suit was at the stage of arguments, with a prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating proposed paragraph No.3(a) immediately after paragraph No.3 in the plaint. A reading of the proposed paragraph No.3(a) go to show that the plaintiff has narrated the facts about the flow of title of the suit schedule property in her favour and also has stated that suit schedule property is part and parcel of land bearing survey No.58 which was subsequently subdivided. The proposed amendment in no way changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. Proposed amendment is only to bring on record certain factual aspects which would be necessary for the purpose of proper and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 10. It is relevant to note that in R.A No.23/2017 the Appellate Court while remitting the matter to the Trial Court has directed the Trial Court to afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence and both the parties have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45671 WP No. 2388 of 2024 not only lead additional evidence but also have marked certain additional documents. The proposed amendment appears to be explaining the documents which are produced on behalf of the plaintiff after remand. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC does not completely bar filing of an application seeking amendment of the plaint and in the present case, it is relevant to note that suit was earlier decreed and in R.A No.23/2017, the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff was set aside and the matter was remitted with liberty to the parties to lead additional evidence and the proposed amendment is only with regard to additional facts about flow of the title in respect of the suit schedule property. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022) SCC Online SC 1128 has observed that the Courts should be liberal while considering application seeking amendment of pleadings and there should not be any hyper technical approach by the Courts, if it is found that the proposed amendment is necessary - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45671 WP No. 2388 of 2024 for proper and effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties which would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 12. It is true that the application has been filed belatedly by the plaintiffs, when the suit was at the stage of arguments and therefore inconvenience caused to defendants is required to be compensated and therefore the prayer made in the application can be granted only subject to imposing appropriate costs on the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, following. ORDER 1. The writ petition is allowed. 2. The order impugned dated 20.12.2023 passed on IA No.10 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in OS No.31/2010 by the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, is hereby set-aside. Consequently, IA No.10 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.7,500/-. 3. The cost imposed shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45671 WP No. 2388 of 2024 4. It is needless to state that defendants are entitled to file additional written statements if any before the Trial Court. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33