HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10025 WP No. 23970 of 2022 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.23970 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHAHINA KANAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O LATE HAYATH KHAN, W/O RIZWAN PASHA, R/AT MUSLIM STREET, HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 127. 2. SMT. SHANWAZ KHANAM D/O LATE HAYATH KHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O NYMATH KHAN, R/AT DOOR NO.92, MAJID ROAD, VYASARAJAPURA VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 110. 3. SMT. SHENAZ KANAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O LATE HAYATH KHAN, W/O MOHAMED SAMEER HUSSAIAN, R/AT MUGUR VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 110. 4. SMT. SAMEERA KHANAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O MUJEER KHAN, W/O TABRIZ PASHA, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10025 WP No. 23970 of 2022 - 2 - R/AT DOOR NO. 165, EWS, 3RD CROSS, 3RD STAGE, KALYANAGIRI, MYSORE CITY-570 019. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETAJI.N.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RIYAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE HAYATH KHAN, R/AT DOOR NO. 2684, SHAHEE MAJID, 7TH CROSS, PULAKESHI ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSORE -570 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH.R.B., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD 04.11.2022 PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT T NARASIPURA, MYSURU IN OS.147/2020 AT ANNEXURE-E ON I.A.NO.4. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 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 04.11.2022 in O.S.No.147/2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura, Mysuru. By HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10025 WP No. 23970 of 2022 - 3 - the Impugned Order, an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court giving a finding that unless the party seeking amendment shows due diligence for preferring the application belatedly, the application cannot be allowed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has raised only one contention before this Court. He submits that the amendment was a pre-trial amendment and that the trial had not commenced. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has wrongly invoked the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in this case and has stated that the petitioner/applicant was not diligent in filing the application. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs had in fact taken adjournments to lead their evidence. However, he does not dispute the fact that the trial had not commenced in the matter. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10025 WP No. 23970 of 2022 - 4 - 4. Ordinarily, the Courts are liberal in granting amendments provided that these amendments have not been sought after the trial had commenced. The settled law with respect to applications for amendment of pleadings is that ordinarily amendments sought are to be allowed except where there is any change in the nature of the suit or the amendment would be barred by limitation. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others1, while discussing amendments to pleadings held as follows: “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 Das2. 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 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615 2 (2008) 8 SCC 511 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10025 WP No. 23970 of 2022 - 5 - 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 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.,3 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. 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10025 WP No. 23970 of 2022 - 6 - (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– (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] 6. Since it is not disputed by the parties that the trial had not commenced, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC could not be invoked by the learned Trial Court. The only finding as contained in the Impugned Order is the fact that due diligence has not been exercised and to this extent, the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity and requires to be set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10025 WP No. 23970 of 2022 - 7 - 7. Accordingly, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) The order dated 04.11.2022 on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.147/2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura, Mysuru, is set aside; (ii) I.A.No.4 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is allowed. However, in view of the fact that the application has been filed belatedly, the petitioners/plaintiffs shall pay costs in a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the respondents/defendants on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court. (iii) The petition is allowed in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand disposed of. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA