HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 9042 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. H.RAJANNA S/O LATE.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, YASHODANAGAR, JAKKUR PLANTATION, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THIMMEGOWDA.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NAGARAJ.N S/O. LATE. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, NAVYANAGAR, JAKKUR POST, BANGALORE-560 064. 2. SUSHEELA.H.DASAR D/O. HUCHHAPPA DASAR, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO. 146, 4TH CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, YEHALANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-64. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD: 04/08/2021-NOTICE TO R2 IS WAIVED) *** HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 2 - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2020, PASSED IN O.S.NO.1985/2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-35), AT BANGALORE, UNDER ANNEXURE -F BY ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 09.03.2020, passed on I.A.No.1/2019 in O.S.No. 1985/2015, by the learned XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the ”CPC”], filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been allowed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 3 - 2. On 08.01.2026, after hearing the parties, this Court passed the following directions: “2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 requests for an adjournment. His request is although not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, he submits that the matter does not have any merit. It is contended that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was allowed by which the petitioner/defendant No.2 was impleaded as a party. Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint, in view of the fact that new parties had been impleaded. The learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court examined the matter and found that the amendments are necessary for the purpose of adjudication as well as that since the trial of the matter has not commenced, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is not applicable. In addition, it was held by the Trial Court that the objections taken by the petitioner/defendant No.2 were all objections which could be taken in his defence and thus the application was allowed. 3. This Court has perused the Impugned Order. The challenges that have been raised by the petitioner/ defendant No.2 to the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC are available to be raised by him in its Written Statement or by way of other proceedings in law. These challenges by themselves will not be relevant for a rejection of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Prime facie, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 today submits that on the last date of hearing, all the contentions were not made. He submits that his primary HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 4 - challenge to the application for amendment is on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel submits that there was an earlier suit for injunction filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff and the title of the respondent No.1/plaintiff was challenged in the earlier suit as well, however, the respondent did not take steps qua the challenge and thus the application for amendment is barred by limitation. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that an earlier suit for injunction that was filed was claiming rights over the same subject matter of dispute and the identification and title of the suit property was also disputed. But after a lapse of nine years from that Written Statement, the application for amendment has been filed and it stood thus dismissed. 4. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 5 - Others1, more specifically paragraphs 59 to 61. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 that in terms of Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, [hereinafter referred to as the “Limitation Act”], the amendment sought for should have been taken place within three years from the date of the earlier suit, which is in the year 2010. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff on the other hand submits that the respondent No.1/plaintiff claims title to the suit schedule property in terms of a registered Sale Deed dated 19.05.2010. He further contends that the petitioner/ defendant No.2 claims rights in terms of Sale Deed dated 03.07.2014. Learned counsel further avers that the earlier suits were filed by him for declaration and injunction. However, the amendment was necessitated in view of the fact that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit schedule property on 01.04.2018. Thus, he submits that the 1 (2009) 10 SCC 84 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 6 - proposed amendments are necessary in view of a subsequent event. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff further submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner/defendant No.2 before this Court was only impleaded as a party on 03.10.2018. Thus, it is contended that amendments were necessary. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit against the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioner/defendant No.2, for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The prayers as well as the Schedule of the suit property are extracted below: “a)To declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property. b)To Declare the Sale Deed dated 12/3/1981 vide Docu. No. 18508/1980-91 paged 212 to 213 volume no 3448 of Book-I registered in the office of the sub registrar Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore the Sale Deed is null and void. c)To restrain the defendants not to alienate the schedule property pending disposal of the above suit Award cost. d)Pass such other orders that his Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.” HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 7 - “SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 41, Katha No.96/1/41 situated at jakkur village, yelhanka Hobli, Bangalore, BBMP Ward No.7, Byataraynapura, Bangalore measuring East to West 30 feet North to south 40 Feet totally measuring 1200 Sq feet and bound on the:- East by : Private property West by : Site No. 40. North by : Road South by : Private property” 8. As stated above, the petitioner before this Court is defendant No.2 before the learned Trial Court. An application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, seeking to amend the plaint on 19.02.2019. By the application, the amendments that were sought by the respondent No.1/plaintiff were to add the factum of dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant No.2 (petitioner/defendant No.2), and also to state that the sale took place during the pendency of another suit and therefore, the same was not binding on the plaintiff. In addition, prayers for an additional declaration, as well as for a mandatory injunction and possession, were sought. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 8 - 9. The learned Trial Court examined the amendments sought for and found that the amendments arose on account of the petitioner/defendant No.2 trespassing illegally into the suit schedule property and dispossessing the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The learned Trial Court found that the trial was yet to be commenced and that the present amendments were necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and thus has allowed the amendment. 10. A review of the Impugned Order also shows that the averments taken before this Court were also raised before the learned/Trial Court, including that the application is ‘hit by Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act’, although the respondent No.1/plaintiff came to know about the Sale Deed when defendant had filed the Written Statement, on 17.07.2015. 11. At this stage, it is necessary to set out Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act below: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 9 - Schedule Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 58 To obtain any other declaration Three years When the right to sue first accrues 12. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 that the defendants have disputed the identification and title of the suit schedule property for the last nine years. It is not disputed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 that he did not file the earlier suit. It is also not disputed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 that he was only arrayed as a party to the present suit, in the year 2018. The petitioner/defendant No.2 is relying on the previous proceedings filed by the predecessors-in-interest of respondent No.2 before this Court. However, concededly, the respondent No.2 has not challenged the Impugned Order. 13. The law of amendment of pleadings is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court, in the case of Dinesh Goyal HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 10 - alias Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others2, while discussing amendments to pleadings, has held that ordinarily, amendments ought to be allowed, except where the amendments would cause prejudice or barred by limitation or such other ground. The relevant extract is set out below: “11. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case, let us consider the law relating to the amendments of pleadings. 11.1. The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das3. it was held as under: “16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these a real so well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR1957SC363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615 3 (2008) 8 SCC 511 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 11 - injury which could not be compensated in costs. [Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar (1990) 1 SCC 166.]” 11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,4 after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:- (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if – (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time- barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are– 4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 12 - (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to setup an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.” [Emphasis Supplied] 14. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner/defendant No.2 in the case of Revajeetu Builders also does not come to the aid of the petitioner. The Supreme Court has therein discussed when amendments ought to be allowed and has held that notwithstanding the law of limitation, under certain circumstances an amendment may be allowed. Since the fact that whether the claim is barred by the law of limitation is one of many factors that would require to be taken an account by exercising discretion, whether the amendment should be allowed or refused and if the amendment is in the interest of justice, it must be allowed. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 13 - judgment in the case of Revajeetu Builders at paragraph Nos.35 and 39: “35. The general principle is that courts at any stage of the proceedings may allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all those amendments must be allowed which are imperative for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The basic principles of grant or refusal of amendment articulated almost 125 years ago are still considered to be correct statement of law and our courts have been following the basic principles laid down in those cases. xxx xxx xxx 39. The rule, however, is not a universal one and under certain circumstances, such an amendment may be allowed by the court notwithstanding the law of limitation. The fact that the claim is barred by the law of limitation is but one of the factors to be taken into account by the court in exercising the discretion as to whether the amendment should be allowed or refused, but it does not affect the power of the court if the amendment is required in the interests of justice (see Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC 393] and Arundhati Mishra v. Ram Charitra Pandey [(1994) 2 SCC 29] ).” [Emphasis Supplied] 14.1 The Supreme Court also reiterated the principles when amendment should be allowed, holding that the amendment should be necessary for determining the issue in controversy and the amendment does not cause or is likely to cause prejudice to the opposite party. The relevant extract that has been relied upon by the learned HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 14 - counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 is with respect to ‘costs’ as well as ‘prejudice’. Neither ‘costs’ nor ‘prejudice’ has been argued by the petitioner/defendant No.2 before this Court. The relevant extract of the judgment in the case of Revajeetu Builders is set out below: “Whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy 58. The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts' discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment. No prejudice or injustice to other party 59. The other important condition which should govern the discretion of the court is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to the other side. Ordinarily, if the other side is compensated by costs, then there is no injustice but in practice hardly any court grants actual costs to the opposite side. The courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings but court's powers must be exercised judiciously and with great care. 60. In Ganga Bai case5 this Court has rightly observed: (SCC p. 399, para 22) “22. … The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of 5 (1974) 2 SCC 393 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 15 - such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the court.” Costs 61. The courts have consistently laid down that for unnecessary delay and inconvenience, the opposite party must be compensated with costs. The imposition of costs is an important judicial exercise particularly when the courts deal with the cases of amendment. The costs cannot and should not be imposed arbitrarily. In our view, the following parameters must be taken into consideration while imposing the costs. These factors are illustrative in nature and not exhaustive: (i) At what stage the amendment was sought. (ii) While imposing the costs, it should be taken into consideration whether the amendment has been sought at a pre-trial or post-trial stage. (iii) The financial benefit derived by one party at the cost of other party should be properly calculated in terms of money and the costs be awarded accordingly. (iv) The imposition of costs should not be symbolic but realistic. (v) The delay and inconvenience caused to the opposite side must be clearly evaluated in terms of additional and extra court hearings compelling the opposite party to bear the extra costs. (vi) In case of appeal to higher courts, the victim of the amendment is compelled to bear considerable additional costs. All these aspects must be carefully taken into consideration while awarding the costs.” [Emphasis Supplied] HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 16 - 16. It is not disputed that the petitioner/defendant No.2 has been impleaded only on 03.10.2018 and the amendments sought for are on the basis of a subsequent event. The amendments sought for, do not withdraw any admissions made nor change the nature of the suit. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 is also not been able to show to this Court, how the present amendment would prejudice him. Given the aforesaid fact that the amendment has been made prior to the commencement of the trial and in view of a subsequent event and the subsequent impleadment of the petitioner/ defendant No.2 to the suit, the learned Trial Court has allowed the amendments sought for. 18. In view of the aforegoing discussion, this Courts finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7586 WP No. 9042 of 2021 - 17 - 19. It is clarified that the Court has examined the issues raised by the parties on merits and the rights and contentions of both the parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA