- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43863 WP No. 8900 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 8900 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MANJULA S. PATEL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O. SANJAY R PATEL. 2. SANJAY R PATEL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O RAMAJI. BOTH RESIDING AT NO.354, 1ST STAGE, 6TH PHASE WEST OF CHORD ROAD INDUSTRIAL TOWN BANGALORE - 560 044. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANTHOSH, ADV., FOR SRI VARADARAJAN M.S, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. KUSUMA W/O. LATE H.C. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 86, BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE, ABBIGERE CHIKKABANAWARA POST BANGALORE - 560 090. 2. CHANNAMALLAIAH S/O LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 3. SMT. PUTTANANJAMMA W/O SRI H.M. CHANNAMALLAIAH Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43863 WP No. 8900 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO. 82, PATEL MALLAPPA LAYOUT, ULLALU BASTHI MAIN ROAD MANGANAHALLI CROSS ULLALU, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BANGALORE - 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VISHNU M.S, ADV., FOR R SRI PRASANNA KUMAR C.S, ADV., FOR R-1; R-2 & R-3 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2020 PASSED ON I.A NO.11 IN O.. NO.4987/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A) 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. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant nos.2 & 3 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.10.2020 passed on IA no.11 in O.S.No.4987/2010 by the Court of XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. O.S.No.4987/2010 is filed by respondent no.1 herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, seeking the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43863 WP No. 8900 of 2021 relief of declaration declaring that the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 & 3 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also to declare that plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. A further relief of directing the defendant nos.1 to 4 to hand over possession of Item nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties and a consequential relief of permanent injunction is also sought in the suit. 4. The contesting defendants have filed written statement in the said suit opposing the suit claim. Defendant nos. 2 & 3 who have filed separate written statement had filed IA no.11 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, with a prayer to permit them to amend their written statement by incorporating proposed paragraph nos.4(a) to 4(g) immediately after paragraph no.4 in their original written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected IA no.11 and being aggrieved by the same, defendant nos.2 & 3 are before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits, that proposed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43863 WP No. 8900 of 2021 amendment does not amount to deletion of any admission made in the written statement nor does it change the nature of defence. The petitioners only intend to bring on record certain additional facts which would be necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The application is filed even prior to defendant nos.2 & 3 leading evidence in the case. No hardship would be caused to the other side, if the prayer made in the application is granted. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent/plaintiff has opposed the prayer made in the application. He submits that in the proposed amendment, a legal plea is sought to be introduced which is totally unnecessary. The suit is at the stage of defendants' evidence. In view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, after the trial has commenced, an amendment application cannot be entertained unless the party is in a position to prove its due diligence before the court. Therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43863 WP No. 8900 of 2021 7. Perusal of the averments found in the proposed paragraph nos.4(a) to 4(g), which is sought to be incorporated in the written statement immediately after paragraph no.4 would go to show that defendant nos.2 & 3 have stated certain factual aspects in support of their claim that they are the joint owners of the suit schedule item no.3 along with the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the prayer for declaration of her title, and at best, the plaintiff could be entitled for a decree of partition and allotment of her share in the suit schedule property. 8. In the proposed amendment, no prayer is made to delete any statement or admission by defendant nos.2 & 3 nor does the proposed amendment has the effect of diminishing the contentions urged on behalf of defendant nos.2 & 3 in their original written statement. It is trite that the Court should be liberal while considering an application for amendment. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS VS MANOHAR SINGH & ANOTHER - (2006)6 SCC 498, has observed that though principles to be to be followed while considering an application for amendment is similar, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43863 WP No. 8900 of 2021 Courts should be more liberal while considering an application for amendment of written statement because the other side will not be put to any hardship. It is well settled that the defendants are entitled to take inconsistent stand in the written statement, whereas the plaintiff cannot be permitted to do so. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - LiveLaw (SC) 729, has held that in normal circumstances the prayer made by the parties for amendment should be granted and in the event the other side is put to inconvenience, the same can be compensated monetarily. 11. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer made in IA no.11 by defendant nos.2 & 3, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 12. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 06.10.2020 passed on IA no.11 in O.S.No.4987/2010 by the Court of XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43863 WP No. 8900 of 2021 set aside, and consequently the prayer made in IA no.11 is granted, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by defendant nos.2 & 3 to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK