HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7385 WP No. 23481 of 2022 - 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. 23481 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. G.VENKATESH SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SMT. SAROJA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY, 2. SMT. G. SUBBULAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O LATE G.VENKATESH, 3. MASTER JISHNU AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, S/O LATE G. VENKATESH SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND, NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SECOND PETITIONER ALL ARE R/AT NO.1 MUTHYALAMMA KOIL STREET, SEPPINGS ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHENNARAYA REDDY.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G.MOHANVELU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SON OF LATE HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7385 WP No. 23481 of 2022 - 2 - G.GOVINDASWAMY, R/AT NO.26, 2ND CROSS, DEVARAJA MUDALIAR STREET, NALA ROAD, SIVAN CHETTY GARDENS, BHARATHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 042. 2. SMT. G.AMRUTHAVENI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY, W/O RUKUMANGATHAN, R/AT NO.8, KALATHI ANNAMALI CHETTY STREET, ARANI, THIRUVANAMALAI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-632 301. 3. SMT. G. KOKILA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY, W/ O GAJENDRAN, R/AT NO.25, THULASINGAM PILLAI STREET, SANKARAN PALYAM, VELLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-632 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3-SERVED) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.26462/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL AND QUASH ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.III IN O.S.NO.26462/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL (CCH 29) DATED 25.08.2022. QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 25.8.2022.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7385 WP No. 23481 of 2022 - 3 - THIS 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 25.08.2022 passed in O.S.No.26462/2011 by the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 by the Petitioner/Plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The learned Trial Court has given a finding that the application has been filed belatedly and that the entire nature of the suit is being changed. The learned Trial Court has also found that the case was filed in the year 2014. At that time the petitioner/plaintiff did not seek any partition. However, after the death of the petitioner/plaintiff when his legal representatives stepped into his shoes and the amendment application was filed on 14.06.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that there was no delay in filing the application as it was filed HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7385 WP No. 23481 of 2022 - 4 - immediately upon the legal representatives being brought on record. He further seeks to rely upon para 7 of the application in this behalf to submit that the learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed his application for amendment. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant on the other hand has submitted that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another1 in this behalf. In addition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that no partition can be granted since a partition has already taken place between the family members earlier. 5. The learned Trial Court has examined the application and found that it has been filed belatedly and that this application has also changed the nature of the suit which was originally filed for declaration and cancellation in respect of a release deed. The learned Trial Court has also found that the proposed 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7385 WP No. 23481 of 2022 - 5 - amendment has been filed after the commencement of the trial. 6. A review of the Impugned Order shows that the suit was filed in the year 2014 by the original plaintiff seeking the following reliefs: “a) For declaration that the Release Deed dated 06- 11-2004, registered as Document No.BLN-1- 33569/2004-05, CD.No.BLND78, of Book 1, in the office of Senior Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North, Taluk, Bangalore and Release Deed dated 29-04- 2005, registered as Document No.BLN-1- 05294/2005-06, CD.No.BLND172, of Book 1, in the office of Senior Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore are not binding on the plaintiff, as the first release deed is being registered in favour of plaintiff on 21-01:2004, registered as document No.40173/2003-04, in the office of sub registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. b) Directing the defendant No.1 or any of their attorney/s, agent/s and /or other person/s acting for or under the instruction, guidance and control or on behalf in the name of any or all of the defendant No.1 by permanent injunction, restraining them from alienating in the whole or any portion of the said property or interest therein any manner or to any extent. c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 his agents, or servants or any one on his behalf from changing the character of the suit schedule property and further restrain creating any charge over the suit schedule property. d) For the costs of the suit. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7385 WP No. 23481 of 2022 - 6 - e) And for such other relief as may be deemed fit to grant in the circumstances of the case”. 7. It is not disputed by the parties that the suit was filed in the year 2014 and that the trial had already commenced in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact even the Defendants (Respondent’s) evidence had already concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that however DW1 was recalled pursuant to an application. It is thus undisputed that the trial had commenced. 8. The learned Trial court after examination of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, also found that no grounds had been set out in terms of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. 9. An examination of para 7 of the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff shows that it merely sets out that there has been no delay in filing the application since they have been brought on record recently. The only reason that is set out in the application is that the counsel for the legal representatives of the original plaintiff (petitioner herein) advised them to file HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7385 WP No. 23481 of 2022 - 7 - this application. In addition, it is set out that the nature of the suit has not been changed and that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The relevant extract is set out below: “7. There is no delay in seeking the amendment of plaint as we were brought on record recently after death of the original plaintiff. We are entitled to lead our evidence after we are brought on record. 8. The proposed amendment if allowed, it does not change the nature and character of the plaint. In this case the relationship between the parties to the suit is not in dispute. So also the existence of the suit property is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that in O.S. No. 25/207 on the file of the District Judge, Thiruvannamalai filed by the third defendant against the plaintiff in this suit and the suit schedule property as deleted from the plaint in O.S. No. 25/2007. Without prejudice to the contentions of the plaintiff, admittedly the suit schedule property was purchased by the said Govindaswamy who is no more, the plaint schedule property is not partitioned between the legal representatives of Govindaswamy, the original plaintiff is entitled to a share in the undivided suit schedule property. It is also not the case of the first defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. Hence, the amendment prayed for is liable to be allowed”. [Emphasis Supplied] 10. It is no longer res integra that amendments should be allowed liberally, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC sets out that the amendment should not be allowed once the trial in the matter has commenced and evidence is led. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7385 WP No. 23481 of 2022 - 8 - 11. A plain reading of the provision shows that where an amendment is sought for after the trial has commenced, the provision requires the applicant to show due diligence in asking for the amendment. There is absolutely no averment in the application filed as to how due diligence was exercised by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff has been unable to show this Court that due diligence was exercised or any reason why the application was not filed previously by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner/plaintiff. As stated above, the suit was pending from the year 2014. 12. In addition to the lack of due diligence, the amendment would change the entire nature of the suit. The respondent/ defendant has also contended that there was a previous partition inter se between the parties which is why originally the relief for partition was not sought for. 13. Given these facts, this Court finds there is no infirmity in the Impugned Order, the petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB/BMV* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA