- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43233 WP No. 2252 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 2252 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S M.C. BUILDERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR M DHANANJAYA REDDY, S/O M C PITCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.69,. 2ND FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI UMA SHANKAR M.N, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O LATE PAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS. 2. P. RAMA REDDY S/O LATE PAPAIAH REDDY SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LRS R-3, R-4 & R-5. 3. P VENKATESH S/O LATE PAPAIAH REDDY SINCE DEDAD, REPRESENTED BY LRS R-4 & R-5. 4. PAVITHRA D/O P VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 5. KIRAN S/O P VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43233 WP No. 2252 of 2022 (THE RESPONDENTS NOS 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.257 BOREWELL ROAD, WHITEFIELD K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 066. 6. SUNDARA RAMA REDDY S/O LATE GURUVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 7. RADHA W/O SUNDARA RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 8. S. BABU W/O SUNDARA RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 9. ANITHA S D/O SUNDARA RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 10. KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE GURUVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. (THE RESPONDENTS NOs 6; TO 10 ARE R/AT SHOBA ROAD APARTMENT, NO.2026, 2ND FLOOR, B BLOCK, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 066) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BINU M, ADV., AND SRI AJAY KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-1, R-4 & R-5; R-6 TO R-10 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORD IN O.S.NO.114/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,BENGALURU AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME QUASH THE SET ASIDE THE ORDER MIA U/O 6 RULE 17 R/W SEC 151 OF CPC DATED 11.01.22 IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43233 WP No. 2252 of 2022 O.S.NO.114/2012 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,BENGALURU. 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 1. Defendant No.6 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 11.01.2022 passed on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs in OS No.114/2012 by the V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. OS No.114/2012 is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein seeking the relief of declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction. In the said suit, contesting defendants including defendant No.6, had filed written statement opposing the prayer made in the suit. Application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed with a prayer to amend the plaint by deleting paragraph No.2 and incorporating proposed paragraph Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 5(a) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43233 WP No. 2252 of 2022 in the plaint. The said application was opposed by defendant No.6 by filing a detailed statement of objection. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed the said application and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.6 is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has not even referred to the contentions urged by defendant No.6 in the statement of objections filed opposing the application. Absolutely no reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court for allowing the application. The plaintiffs intend to withdraw the admissions made in the plaint and introduce a new case by incorporating additional paragraphs which is not permissible. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondents/plaintiffs has opposed the petition and has argued in support of the impugned order. 6. Application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs with a prayer to amend the plaint by deleting paragraph No.2 and by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43233 WP No. 2252 of 2022 incorporating proposed paragraph Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 5(a) in the plaint. The said application was opposed by defendant No.6 by filing a detailed statement of objections which runs to eleven pages. Reference is made in the said objections to a finding recorded in MFA No.2735 of 2021 by this Court, which arose out of an order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for temporary injunction. 7. A reading of the order impugned would go to show that except taking note that the defendant No.6 has filed objections to the application, the contentions urged on behalf of the defendant No.6 in his objections filed opposing the prayer made in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiffs has not been referred to by the learned trial Judge. Learned trial Judge has proceeded to allow the application only for the reason that proposed amendment does not change the cause of action and the amendment is necessary for disposal of the suit on its merits. Further, it is also observed that except the ground of delay, no other objection is raised by the defendant for rejecting the application. This reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43233 WP No. 2252 of 2022 erroneous having regard to the contentions urged by defendant No.6 in the objections filed by him to the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. The order impugned is therefore, liable to be set- aside on the short ground that the said order is bereft of reasons and the said order is passed by the Trial Court without proper application of mind. Accordingly, the following order:- 8. The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 11.01.2022 passed on the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs in OS No.114/2012 by the V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set-aside and the Trial Court is directed to consider the application afresh taking into consideration the contentions urged by defendant No.6 in its objections filed to the said application. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29