HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 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. 24284 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR GOWDA.G.N. S/O G.R.NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PERSENTLY R/AT ‘F’ BLOCK, 1203, AJMERA GREEN, B.G.ROAD, KALEENA GRAHARA, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHUKAR.M.DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ABDUL KUDDUS S/O LATE SHAIK MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/T NO 8, 1ST BLOCK, 6TH CROSS, SOMESHWARANAGAR, JAYANGARA, BANGALORE-560 011. 2. SRI. N.RAMACHANDRA S/O G.NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/T GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH ADITHYA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 2 - O.S.NO.495/2007 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION DATED 13.09.2021 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/R1 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, IN O.S.NO.495/2007 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS 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 22.10.2021 in O.S.No.495/2007 passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity for two reasons. Firstly, he submits that the amendment that was sought for, changes the nature of the suit. Since the relief of possession was not sought for earlier, the relief HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 3 - could not be sought for at the belated stage. Secondly, learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC since this was an amendment post conclusion of the trial. Reliance in this behalf is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.1 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff on the other hand contends that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had initially filed a suit for declaration of ownership in respect of the suit schedule property. He submits that during the pendency of the suit and at the time of Covid Pandemic, taking advantage of the lock down, the petitioner/defendant No.1 took over possession of the suit schedule property. This led to respondent No.1/plaintiff to file an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Since the respondent No.1/plaintiff was dispossessed, an 1 (2022) 16 SCC 1 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 4 - application for amendment of the pleadings was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, which came to be allowed. 3.1. So far as concerns the second aspect, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the cause of action to file the application for amendment only arose only when the respondent No.1/plaintiff was dispossessed and within a few months of the same, the application was filed. Thus, there was no question of the respondent No.1/plaintiff not being diligent. 4. The learned Trial Court has found that it is not disputed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been dispossessed and that the nature of the suit is not changed with seeking a relief of possession. Thus, the application has been allowed. 5. Ordinarily, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC sets out that an amendment should not be allowed once the trial in the matter has begun. It is no longer res integra that courts should normally be liberal while adjudicating HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 5 - amendments. However, where such amendments have been sought for after the trial has commenced, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC requires the applicant to show due diligence in asking for the amendment. 6. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC sets out that amendment should not be allowed once the trial in the matter has begun and reads as under: "17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." [Emphasis supplied] 7. An examination of the record shows that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has sought for an amendment wherein it is stated that the petitioner/defendant No.1 had illegally encroached on the suit schedule property and had succeeded in dispossessing the respondent No.1/plaintiff. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 6 - Thus, the prayer for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property is to be added. The application is dated 13.09.2021 and dispossession took place on 29.07.2021. The application and the affidavit read as under: “ Proposed Amendment TO ADD PARA 17 (A) AFTER PARA 17 AS UNDER 17(a) The plaintiff submits that on 29.7.2021 this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to dismiss the I.A. filed under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 by the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from changing the nature of suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a vacant land and it was kept open all these years during the pendency of the case. By virtue of dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff under order 39 Rule 1 & 2, the defendant who is a most powerful person having political influence and also the police support before filing the applications has entered into the suit schedule property and started putting up legal sheds and tried to change the nature of suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also produced the photographs to show that the defendant has illegally encroached upon the suit schedule property, along with the I.A. under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Therefore by that time the I.A. came to be dismissed, the defendant has succeeded his illegal attempts. Hence the plaintiff without seeking any appeal sought for recovery of possession from the defendant. Who has entered into the suit schedule property illegally by using political and police force. TO ADD IN THE PRAYER 2(A) AFTER THE PRAYER NO. 2 AS UNDER 2(a) Direct the defendant to deliver the vacant possession in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Affidavit HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 7 - 3. submit that by that time the said application came to be dismissed on 29.7.2021 the defendant forcibly taken the possession and put up illegal sheds. Therefore by virtue of the subsequent events, I am constrained to seek necessary relief of. Possession along with the existing prayer. The proposed amendment is subsequent to trial is not barred, since by virtue of the circumstances which has been changed, I have made to seek the necessary amendment to the plaint. 4. I submit that the proposed amendment is proper and necessary. It does not change the nature of suit or cause of action. The proposed amendment is not a bar, as the proposed amendment is subsequent events during the pendency of the suit.” [Emphasis Supplied] 8. Undisputably the application had been filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff after the trial had commenced. However, the application was necessitated by the subsequent events which had taken place after the filing of the plaint. The Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India case, while discussing the salient features of when an amendment should be allowed has held that where amendments are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and cause no prejudice to the other side, the amendments should be allowed as the provision uses the word “shall”. However, the time barred claim sought to be introduced or where the nature of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 8 - suit is changed, amendment should not be allowed. In addition, a delay in applying for amendment is not a ground for disallowing a prayer. When the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and an issue framed separately for decision. It is apposite to set out relevant extract which reads as follows: “71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2. 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 6 Rule 17CPC. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 9 - 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time- barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 10 - 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897].)” [Emphasis Supplied] 9. Concededly, the respondent No.1/plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. Since the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the application within a short period of being dispossessed, it cannot be said that he was not diligent. In addition, where a suit is filed for declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession and subsequently the plaintiff is dispossessed, an application seeking amendment of pleadings, praying for restoration of possession cannot be change of setting up of an entirely “new case.” HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10027 WP No. 24284 of 2021 - 11 - 10. In view of the aforegoing discussions, we find no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. The petition is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications stand closed. 11. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the matter on merits. The rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN / KS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA