- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 19972 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S RED CORAL PROPERTIES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 9, MAHAVEER HOUSE, 24TH MAIN, 6TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI K PRAVEEN 2. M/S MEDA GREENS HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT NO. 1569, OUTER RING ROAD, OPP. AGRA LAKE, HSR LAYOUT SECTOR -1, BENGALURU – 560 002. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI NISHANTH REDDY, S/O SRI M. V. SHESHA REDDY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RADHANANDAN B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MONIKA D/O SRI MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/A NO. 103, VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 060. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 2. SRI GALAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 3. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 4. SMT. SANJEEVAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 5. SMT. VENKATAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 6. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 7. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 8. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 9. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 10. SRI VIJAY KUMAR S/O GALAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 11. SRI MOHAN KUMAR S/O GALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 12. SMT. SWAPNA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 13. SRI LOKESH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 14. SRI GOUTHAM S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 060 15. SRI IRSHAD AHMED S/O IQBAL AHMED, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 137, 1ST FLOOR, SRINIVASA NILAYA, PARVATHIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 004. 16. SRI M. VENUGOPAL REDDY S/O PAPI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO. C-301, RAMKY UTSAV, NO. 1 SEENAPPA BADAVANE, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 094 17. M/S MRKR CONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIES PVT LTD NO. 8-2-268/1/D/A PLOT NO. 7, AURORA COLONY, RD NO. 3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD – 500 034 COMPANY REGISTERED UNCER COMPNMIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI M. RAMAKRISHNAREDDY, S/O VENKATASUBBAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISHA C. M., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION BY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.4.2025 ON I.A. NO.23 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, IN O.S.NO.1307/2017, ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-28), BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE- A UNDER WHICH APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT WAS ALLOWED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant Nos.16 and 18 in O.S.No.1307/2017 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.28), Bengaluru City (for short “the Trial- Court”) is directed against the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, whereby the application, I.A.No.23 filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1 – plaintiff No.2 along with plaintiff No.1 instituted the aforesaid suit seeking for partition and separate possession - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. After commencement of trial, the respondent-plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint and the said application having been opposed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.16 and 18, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under: “Orders on IA No.23 Plaintiff has filed the present interlocutory application seeking amendment to the plaint. Objections to the same is filed by the defendant No.18. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon 1 citation. Counsel for defendant has relied upon 1 citation. Having heard both side perused the materials available on record. Following points arise for my consideration:- Point No.1:- Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant has made out a ground that the proposed amendment is necessary for the adjudication of lis in hand? Point No.2:- Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant has made out a ground of due diligence in seeking the amendment after settlement of issues? Point No.3:- What order? My findings to point No.1:- In the Affirmative. Point No.2:- In the Affirmative Point No.3:- As per final order for the following:- REASONS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 Point No.1:- The plaintiff has filed the present suit as against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession with consequential relief of declaration. This IA is filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment to insert sentence at 17th line of page 6 of the plaint and to add sentence at prayer column number 2. On the ground that due to inadvertence and due to mistake the plaintiff could not seek amendment to the relevant portions when initial suit was filed and subsequently when amendment was also allowed. Defendant No.18 has objected to the said application contending that IA under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was allowed on 13.11.2017 but though the plaintiff could have sought amendment in relation to the impleading defendant No.17 and also with regard to the joint development agreement which the plaintiff was aware as on 13.11.2017 but belatedly to protract the matter the application is filed. Hence sought for rejection of the said IA. Having noted the same and also the Judgment relied by the Counsel for plaintiff in Civil Misc 432/2023 and also the citation relied by the Counsel for defendant No.17 and 18 reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s Sanjeev Builders Prviate Ltd reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) page 729. The suit of the plaintiff is one for partition and separate possession. The proposed amendment is sought for incorporating relevant portions to the concerned paragraphs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 However the said amendment will not take away the Jurisdiction of this court nor will the said amendment change the nature of the suit. The said amendment is amplification of pleadings, therefore the plaintiff/applicant has made out the ground that the proposed amendment is necessary for the adjudication of the lis in hand. Accordingly point number 1 is answered in the Affirmative. Point No.2:- The plaintiff who has sought a subsequent amendment in the year 2024 though the plaintiff had impleaded defendant No.17 by way of orders on impleading application as on 13.11.2017 as made this application belatedly. It is well settled possession of law that once the issues are settled the second requirement of due diligence seeking an amendment will have to be established by the applicant. On perusal of the application and the affidavit annexed to it due diligence is not put forth by the plaintiff. However to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also compensating the defendants for the delay by way of reasonable cost point number 2 stands in the Affirmative. Point No.3:- In furtherance of my findings to point number 1 and 2 and also safely relying upon the Verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Court of of Judicature at Patna, I proceed to pass the following:- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 ORDER IA No.23 filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.2000/-. With the direction to the plaintiff to effect amendment within statutory period that is on or before 04.06.2025 and furnish amended plaint by 04.06.2025.” 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. As rightly held by the Trial Court, the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, who would be entitled to file additional written statement and contest the amended plaint on all grounds including limitation. 6. It is also relevant to state that the impugned order of the Trial Court is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369, LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1, LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shivakumar - AIR 2015 SC 3364, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and a co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. It however has to be stated that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date on which amendment application was filed i.e., on 04.07.2024 and by leaving the question of limitation open to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 7. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) It is however made clear that the proposed amendment as allowed by the Trial Court shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from 04.07.2024 i.e., the date of filing of the amendment application and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9184 WP No. 19972 of 2025 iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners- defendant Nos.16 and 18 and other defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation. iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 31