HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 3485 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. S N RAVICHANDRA, S/O LATE MR. S. NAGASUBRAMANIAN, AGED 54 YEARS, 2. SMT. PRIYA RAVICHANDRA, W/O MR. S. N. RAVICHANDRA, AGED 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.609, 11TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, J P NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BANGALORE – 560 078 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA H S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. R J VIMALA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS MR. G. M. BHAGATH SINGH S/O LATE SRI. H G MAHADESHWAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. 2a. MR. G M RANJITH SINGH S/O LATE SRI. H G MAHADESWAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. SANTHOSH R SINGH AGED 62 YEARS W/O LATE RANJITH SINGH HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 2 2b. 2c. SRI. RAGHUVANSH SINGH KCANAUJ AGED 54 YEARS S/O LATE RANJITH SINGH SRI. SURYAVANSH SINGH KCANAUJ AGED 38 YEARS S/O LATE RANJITH SINGH THE LRS OF RESPONDENT ARE RESIDING AT NO.2, #576, 10TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN J P NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE – 560 078 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KAMALA N K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. KESHAVA KUMAR B, ADVOCATE FOR LRs OF DECEASED R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/S, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ANNEXURE-J) DATED 30/01/2021 PASSED ON I.A NO.17 FILED IN O.S NO.2902/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVL JUDGE AT BANGALORE, AND COSNEQUENTLY ALLOW THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION [I.A NO.17] PERMITTING THE PETITIONERS TO AMEND THE PLAINT AS SOUGHT FOR AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU) 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 30.01.2021, passed by the Court of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, in IA No.17, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs had been dismissed by the learned Trial Court and IA No.18 filed by defendant No.1(d) under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) has also been dismissed. The challenge in the present petition is to the dismissal of I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioners. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.2902/2006 seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 18.07.2003 against the predecessor of the respondents, in respect of the suit HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 4 schedule property. The original defendant filed her Written Statement and contested the suit. Thereafter, the original defendant expired and her Legal Representatives, the respondents herein, were brought on record who also filed their Written Statements. 3. It is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that during the cross-examination of Respondent No.2 on 17.02.2020, certain documents were produced which, according to the petitioners, disclosed suppression of material facts, collusion, and alleged fraud relating to the title of the suit schedule property and earlier partition proceedings. On the basis of the said developments during trial, the petitioners filed I.A. No.17 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate additional pleadings in respect of the alleged fraud, suppression, and consequences flowing therefrom. Since this application was dismissed, by the learned Trial Court, this petition has been filed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 5 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs further contends that the Impugned Order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and the material available on record. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and documents produced by the parties and has passed the order without considering the relevant aspects of the matter. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants on the other hand contend that the amendment was rightly rejected, since it was belated and lacking in bonafides. It was submitted that the Agreement of Sale dated 18.07.2003 was executed only by the first petitioner and the name of the second petitioner was subsequently introduced without the knowledge or consent of the deceased original defendant, a fact which was admitted in evidence. The agreement required completion of the transaction within three months (by 18.10.2003), i.e., prior to the institution of the partition proceedings; hence, the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 6 delay could not be attributed to the pendency of the partition suit. 6. It was further contended by the learned counsel for respondents/defendants that the partition suit had culminated in a Preliminary Decree dated 29.08.2008 declaring defined shares in the property. The respondents were impleaded thereafter in the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The petitioners had knowledge of the partition proceedings and had availed of the opportunity to cross-examine on those aspects. The present amendment application, filed after the demise of the original defendant and after evidence had been led, only appears to be an attempt to reopen concluded issues and protract the proceedings. It was further averred that the plea of fraud was vague and unsupported by material particulars. 7. The learned Trial Court, by the Impugned Order held that the suit, being one for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 18.07.2003, had reached its final HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 7 stages and that the amendment application was moved belatedly, without demonstrating due diligence as is mandated under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. It was observed that the proposed amendment sought to introduce allegations of fraud and collusion at a later stage, which were vague, unsupported, and inconsistent with earlier pleadings, and appeared intended to fill lacunae and protract the proceedings. 7.1. The learned Trial Court, by the Impugned Order, found that the reference to the earlier suit and final decree proceedings being O.S.No.8004 of 2003 and F.D.P. No.78 of 2011, were part of the Written Statement filed by the defendants before the Court on 16.01.2012. The learned Trial Court also found that the defendant No.1(b) had filed an application on 12.08.2010 to implead himself as a defendant No.2 and in the said application, he had set out the details of O.S.No.8004 of 2003. The reference of the suit and final decree proceedings were mentioned in this application as well. The applications were dismissed by the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 8 learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court also set out that prior to filing of the suit for specific performance, since the defendants had filed a suit for partition being O.S.No.8004 of 2003, which has since attained finality, that the knowledge of these previous proceedings was already available with the petitioners/plaintiffs. 8. It is no longer res integra that Courts should normally be liberal while adjudicating amendment to pleadings, especially when the main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise litigation. However, when the amendment sought for is after the commencement of the trial, the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is required to be taken into consideration. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is set out below: “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 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 9 diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” [Emphasis Supplied] 9. A perusal of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC by the petitioners/plaintiffs states that on 17.02.2020, the defendant No.1(b) produced certain documents in respect of a partition suit bearing number O.S. No.8004/2003, which documents were marked as Exhibits D7 to D24. These contained a reference of the suit schedule property and thus the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the same. On receipt of the certified copies, the petitioner became aware that the defendants/respondents have obtained a Preliminary Decree on 29.08.2008 and also a Final Decree dated 30.10.2019 thereafter by playing a fraud upon the Court and by colluding amongst themselves. Thus, it is contended in the application that since the facts came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 17.02.2020, the application for amendment was filed. It was also stated that the proposed amendments could not be pleaded earlier, as the petitioner had no knowledge of the earlier judgment and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 10 decree obtained in O.S.No.8004 of 2003. The relevant extract of the affidavit attached along with the application, is set out below: “3. I state that, on 17/02/2020 the Defendant No.1(b) produced certain documents pertaining to the Partition suit bearing O.S.NO. 8004/2003 filed by Defendant No.1(b), against his mother and Brother (i.e. the original defendant and Defendant No.1(a) in the present suit), which were marked as Exhibits D7 to D24. The suit schedule property in this suit was the subject matter in the above suit. Immediately we applied for the certified copy of the above exhibits and were in receipt of the same on 19.02.2020. 4. I state that, after going through the said documents and also during the course of cross examination of DW- 1, we came to know that present defendants along with the deceased defendant have obtained a Preliminary decree dated 29/08/2008 and also the Final decree by playing fraud upon the Court and have colluded amongst themselves, with a mala-fide intention to defeat the rights accrued on us by virtue of the sale agreement dated 18.07.2003 and thereafter. Hence, it is become just and necessary to incorporate the above facts in our plaint. Accordingly today we are filing this application for amendment, without any much delay. 5. I state that, the above facts came to our knowledge only on 17/02/2020 after the production of the afore-said documents by the defendant No.1(b). Accordingly, we have been advised to file this application for amendment of the Plaint praying this Hon'ble Court to permit us to add Paragraphs 15(a) to 15(e) after the existing Para 14 of the Plaint, and also to add an additional prayer in the prayer column. xxx xxx xxx 7. I state that, proposed amendment could not be pleaded earlier since we had no knowledge about HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 11 the earlier Judgment and Decree obtained in O.S.No.8004/2003 and the subsequent FDP. We have no intention to protract the proceedings. The delay in filing the above application is due to the above- mentioned bona-fide reasons, and not intentional. The proposed amendment if allowed will not introduce a new case nor will it change or alter the nature and character of the above suit, as the said version was introduced by the present defendants themselves, and we would get a right in law to meet their case.” [Emphasis Supplied] 10. In reply, the respondents/defendants filed their Statement of Objections and stated therein that the petitioners had knowledge of the previous partition suit O.S. No.8004 of 2003 and had even tried to get himself impleaded in the said suit, albeit unsuccessfully, by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. This application was dismissed on 04.02.2006 and thereafter, there was no challenge placed to the order of dismissal by the petitioner. The respondent further avers that the defendant No.1(a) had filed the application on 19.12.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed their objections on 01.02.2010 opposing this application in the present suit as well. Thus, it is contended that the knowledge of the decree in O.S.No.8004 of 2003 was available to the petitioners in HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 12 the year 2006 itslef, and that the statement made by the petitioners that they only became aware on 17.02.2020, is false. The relevant extract of the Objections filed by the respondents/defendants setting out these pleas, is set out below: “3. The affidavit filed by the plaintiffs, in support of his application is full of suppression of true and material facts. The plaintiffs have lied to this Hon’ble Court on oath. Hence, he has committed perjury before this Hon’ble Court. 4. This defendant respectfully submits that the plaintiffs had the entire knowledge about the partition suit O.S.No.8004/2003 and he had tried to get himself impleaded in the said suit unsuccessfully by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and the same came to be dismissed on 04/02/2006 and he did not further challenge the said order. It is very pertinent to submit that the suit for partition in O.S.No.8004/2003 came to be filed on 07/11/2003. The alleged Sale Agreement between the plaintiff No.1 and the deceased defendant is dated: 18/07/2003. The first plaintiff has filed the above suit for specific Performance is on 12/04/2006. Hence, the plaintiff has waited for three long years after the defendant 1(b) filed the suit for Partition and has filed the above suit for Specific Performance. Hence, the fraud is done by the first plaintiff against the ailing deceased defendant, taking advantage of her health condition. xxx xxx xxx 6. It is very pertinent to submit that, in the year 2012, the defendant 1(a), came on record as legal representative, of the deceased defendant and he has filed his written statement on 16/01/2012 and in his written statement Page 2, continuation of paragraph 1, he has clearly stated about the Partition suit HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 13 decreeing his 1/3rd share and that, he has initiated FDP proceeding seeking half share. Hence, this defendant has not suppressed any facts before this Honb'le Court. Hence, the statement made by the plaintiff No.1, on oath, at paragraph 4, that they came to know about the Preliminary decree dated: 29/08/2008 and the Final decree only during the cross-examination of the DW1, on 17/02/2020, at paragraph 5, is utter false by their own statements made in the above case, while opposing the applications filed by the defendant 1(a). Hence, the reason cited by the plaintiffs, that they came to know about the Preliminary Decree and Final Decree in O.S.No.8004 2003 only on 17/02/2020, during the cross- examination of DW1, is absolutely false and made without application of mind and the same is untenable and on that ground also this application is to be dismissed on delay and laches alone. The said reasons are not at all bonafide and the application is made at the fag-end of the case itself shows the malafide intention of the plaintiffs, to protract the proceedings as possible, deviate the issues and mis-lead this Hon’ble Court and frustrate the defendants.” [Emphasis Supplied] 11. In addition, a review of the Written Statement filed by the first LR of respondent / defendant (Sri. G.M. Bagath Singh) on 16.01.2012, sets out a reference to the suit for partition filed earlier, which was decreed and FDP proceedings initiated in the following terms: “The schedule property was the self acquired property of the father of this defendant. After the death of the father of this defendant, the 2nd defendant, i.e., elder brother of this defendant filed a suit for partition against this defendant and his mother and the said suit was decreed by granting 1/3rd share to this defendant.1/3rd share was given to the mother of HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 14 this defendant. Subsequently as she died, this defendant also initiated FDP proceedings seeking for half share in the schedule property.” [Emphasis Supplied] 11.1. It cannot thus be disputed by the petitioners / plaintiffs that the petitioners/plaintiffs were not aware of the filing of either suit for partition and the final decree proceedings, since this forms part of the Written Statement filed by the respondents / defendants. 12. In addition, the reference of O.S. No. 8004 of 2003 or the earlier partition suit has also been made by the petitioner in application in I.A.No.6 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which was filed by him to implead himself as a defendant in that suit. This application I.A.No.6, was rejected by the learned Trial Court and the order of rejection of impleadment was not challenged by the petitioner. Subsequently, the preliminary decree dated 29.08.2008 was passed in O.S.No.8004 of 2003 and thereafter the Final Decree and judgment was also passed by the learned Trial Court on 30.10.2019. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 15 13. The petitioners/plaintiffs have set out in their application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC that the grounds for not filing these as the fact that these documents were not made available earlier than 17.02.2020, and thus despite due diligence that this amendment could not have been sought earlier. The record however reflects otherwise. Given the undisputed facts as referenced from the pleadings, the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot state that they were not aware of them on 17.02.2020 and only gained knowledge of the same during the course of cross- examination. The petitioners/plaintiffs being aware of the suit for partition and the decree passed therein and the FDP proceedings, cannot now contend that this is a new fact which has only come to their knowledge recently. 14. Concededly, the application for amendment was filed only on 07.08.2020. The petitioners/plaintiffs have also been unable to show to this Court any reason for not filing the application for amendment earlier. Since the petitioners HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15155 WP No. 3485 of 2021 16 / plaintiffs were aware of the earlier suit and final decree proceedings as early as in the year 2006, the inordinate delay in filing the application for amendment cannot be condoned. 15. In view of the aforegoing discussions, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the Impugned Order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YKL/ KS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1