- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4831 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. AISHWARYA LAKE VIEW RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT 2. AISHWARYA LAKEVIEW RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. AISHWARYA LAKEVIEW RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER ALL HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT NO. 191, 6TH FLOOR F CROSS, 6TH MAIN, KAGGADASAPURA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU 560 002 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE FOR; SRI. SURESH V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. P. MOHAN SON OF LATE PAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAGGADASAPURA, C.V. RAMANNAGAR POST, BENGALURU 560 093 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH ORDER DATED 16.01.2025 ON IA UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 PASSED BY THE 24TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH.NO.6), BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.2407 OF 2020 (ANNEXURE-E) OR GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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.4, 5 and 6 in O.S.No.2407/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 1601.2025 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”) whereby the said application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against petitioners and other defendants for declaration, permanent injunction, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 mandatory injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners-defendants, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and at the stage of cross examination of PW-1, the plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional prayers and corresponding pleadings. The said application having been opposed by the defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under: “ORDER ON IA No.V U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SEC 151 C.P.C Present application u/o VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C is filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking permission to amend the plaint and add para.No.15 after para.No.14 of the plaint and Para No.(iii) after para.No.(ii) in the prayer column in the interest of justice and equity. The proposed amendment sought for in para-15 after para -14 of the plaint:- “The plaintiff submits that as already submitted that he is suffering from various diseases and undergone multiple operations and he is even now suffering from ill-health. Taking undue advantage of the above position, the 1st defendant had also created document in order to play fraud against the plaintiff and raised bank loans etc, on the private - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 property which is not subject matter of the suit, belonging to the plaintiff had tried to mortgage and raise loan in various Banks and Financial Institutions. In this behalf the plaintiff had issued notices to the financial institutions such as ICICI Bank, Can Fill Homes Ltd., etc. However, the plaintiff has been unnecessarily humiliated by the 1st defendant in collusion with certain bank, in which the plaintiff has no role, but unnecessarily he had been implicated in C.C.No.19685/ 2007 as well as suit in O.S.No.1629/2012 on the files of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru. In complicated CBI Cases and undergone imprisonment also, but on enquiry the said allegations have been discharged against the plaintiff. The defendant taking undue advantage and he had encroached an extent of 465 feet East to West and x 135 feet North to South totally an extent of 62,775 square feet for the purpose of road to the apartments consisting of A, B, C, D, E and F in the property bearing Sy.No.191 of Kaggadasapura Village, C.V.Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru, the 1st defendant for the best reason known to him had changed the name of ‘EApartments’ to ‘F Apartment. The plaintiff is herewith producing the Rough Sketch of the Apartment along with extent of property encroached by the 1st defendant for the identification of the encroachment made in ‘F’ Block, measuring 9,944 along with the encroachment for road as stated supra and purpose of road and other civic amenities. Other than, the one already handed over to the 1st defendant. Thus, the 1st defendant had encroached totally an extent of 62, 775 + 9944 square feet of Land belonging to the plaintiff. It is not out of place to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 submit that, the 1st defendant had made all the aforesaid encroachment since there is a vast extent of land owned by the plaintiff measuring 1,15,750 square feet of land measuring about 2 Acres 23 guntas, in Sy.No.191 of Kaggadasapura Village. The 1st defendant had taken advantage of illness of the plaintiff and the possession of huge property by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant had made above said encroachment. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for encroached portion by the 1st defendant illegally and unlawfully”. Add para No.(iii) after para No.(ii) in the prayer column declare that the plaintiff is entitled for 72,719 square feet of land in Sy.No.191 of Kaggadasapura Village, C.V.Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru. 2. In the affidavit accompanying the application, plaintiff has stated that, defendant No.1 in order to knock off the valuable property owned by him to an extent of 62,775 + 9944 totally 72,719 square feet had been encroached illegally and unlawfully. Defendant No.1 has taken advantage of the various illness and multiple operation that are undergone by the plaintiff because of his serious illness, the defendant No.1 had got encroached the above said land when the plaintiff was undergoing treatment and when he was hospitalized. The plaintiff could not raise the above allegation earlier because of his illness and could not contact his Counsel and explain the details, regarding the encroachment made by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 approached this Court by way of this amendment application. 3. It is further stated that, the plaintiff had been subjected to various criminal litigation at the instance of defendant No.1 who borrowed loan on the private property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also been subjected to imprisonment at the instance of defendant No.1. But ultimately on enquiry, said allegations have been closed and the plaintiff is discharged from the litigation. 4. It is further contended that, by amending the plaint, the original Cause of Action will not be changed nor, a new case is introduced and by not seeking such an amendment earlier could not take away the accrued interest on the property if any could not be taken away. The proposed amendment is very germane for the disposal of the suit on merits. By amending above said paragraphs, no harm or hardship will be caused to the opposite party. On the other hand, if the proposed amendment is not allowed, he will be put into irreparable loss and damage which cannot be compensated by whatever means. Hence, prayed for allowing the application. 5. On the contrary, the defendants filed objections to the application contending that, in this suit the plaintiff has filed his affidavit evidence on 04.09.2023. On 18.04.2024 the plaintiff has filed application u/o VII Rule 14 for leave to produce documents. When the case was posted on 27.06.2024 for further examination in-chief of Pw.1 he - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 sought time and on 23.07.2024 the plaintiff has filed this present application after commencement of trial. Unless the plaintiff meets the requirements as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he is not entitled to maintain the application. By filing the application, the plaintiff is now trying to introduce facts which were all along in his knowledge and could have been included when he filed the suit itself. There is nothing in the affidavit that the ‘relevant fact’ arose after the filing of the suit and after evidence was commenced in this case. 6. It is further contended that, the request to include an additional prayer of declaration is made 4 years after the suit is filed and 23 years after the execution of Gift Deed by Smt.Indramma. The present application is only a ruse to protract the proceedings. It is an abuse of the process of this Court. There is nothing in the affidavit to show that the plaintiff could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Inspite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. 7. It is further contended that, the amendment is clearly malafide and having dragged these defendants to Court, this is a case where the case needs to be decided as soon as possible and the injury caused by the delay cannot be adequately compensated by money. The plaintiff has in the proposed amendment referred to matter as old as 17 years ago and it is not the case of the plaintiff that, these facts were not known to him before the commencement of trial. Hence, prayed to reject the application. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. 9. Considering the materials placed before the Court, the points that would arise for my consideration:- 1) Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties? 2) What Order? 10. My answer to the above points are as under:- Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:- R E A S O N S 11. Point No.1: Here, the suit of the plaintiff is for Declaration that the Gift Deed dtd.21.03.2001 executed by Smt.Indiramma in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for Mandatory Injunction directing defendant No.1 to demolish the illegal structure and hand over the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff, for the relief of Permanent Injunction and for other reliefs. 12. The Specific contention of plaintiff is that, he has derived right, title an interest in Sy.No.191 of Kaggadasapura village as it is ancestral property of his father Papaiah Reddy and it was granted by Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition and accordingly, Khata of the property was in the name of plaintiff. He entered into Memorandum of Understanding with defendants Nos.1 to 3 on 14.06.1996 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 and also executed G.P.A in favour of defendant No.2. Said composite property of Sy.No.191 is totally measuring 2 Acres 23 guntas i.e., totally 1,15,750 square feet out of which Memorandum of Understanding was executed with respect to 30,820 square feet and handed over for development. 13. It is his contention that, defendant encroached excess land belonging to plaintiff and put up construction in 5 blocks as A, B, C, D and E and also constructed another block –F by encroaching 9945 square feet of plaintiff’s land. It is also the contention of plaintiff that, defendants Nos.1 to 3 are blood relatives and Smt. Indiramma is mother of defendant No.1 and mother in-law of defendant No.2. She has executed Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.1 and same is fraudulent document not binding on plaintiff etc. 14. On perusal of records, it is forthcoming that, after appearance of defendants, they have filed their written statement and necessary Issues were framed by my Learned Predecessor in Office and the evidence of plaintiff commenced on 04.10.2023. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of Pw.1, present application is filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking permission to amend the plaint and to insert additional paragraphs after para.14 and also for inserting one additional prayer No.(iii) after prayer No.(ii). 15. Now by way of amendment, plaintiff is intending to insert some pleadings to the effect that, as he was suffering from various diseases and undergone multiple operations, defendant No.1 created documents fraudulently and raised - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 Bank loans etc, on private property which is not subject matter of the suit and also tried to mortgage the same and raised loans and also implicated plaintiff in C.C.No.19685/2007 and O.S.No.1629/ 2012 and further it is intended to be added that, along with 9944 square feet defendant No.1 has encroached 62775 square feet land pertaining to plaintiff, hence plaintiff is entitled for total extent of 72719 square feet in Sy.No.191 etc. 16. The main contention taken by defendants in the objection is that, the application is filed after commencement of trial. Hence, as per the proviso to order VI Rule 17 CPC the application is not maintainable and that the plaintiff is not due diligent in prosecuting the matter. It is further the contention that, the amendment sought for is not subsequent event and nothing is stated for not asserting said facts earlier. Hence the application is liable to be rejected etc. They also relied on the decision reported in 2019 (4) SCC 332 in between M.Revanna V/s Anjamma and others and argued that, the burden is on the plaintiff to show due diligence on his part and as there are no bonafides on part of plaintiff, the amendment is not maintainable. 17. No-doubt there is condition in the proviso to order VI Rule 17 CPC that, no amendment shall be allowed after commencement of trial. However, in Catena of decisions it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court and so also our own Hon’ble High Court that, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, parties can be permitted to amend their pleadings even at later stage. Moreover, the amendment sought for by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 plaintiff is with respect to the previous pleadings and there is no insertion of new case or new cause of action. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit. 18. Here if at present, only on the ground that there is some delay in filing the amendment application if same is dismissed, then it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings which will amount to miscarriage of justice. The delay caused can be compensated by imposing cost. Hence in view of my above discussions, I answer point in the Affirmative. 19. Point No.2:- In view of my finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA No.V- U/o VI Rule 17 r/w Sec 151 of C.P.C filed on behalf of plaintiff for amendment of plaint is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.500/-. Plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint as prayed in IA No.V.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-plaintiff had not exercised due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the Trial court committed an error in allowing the application by passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record including the proposed amendment and has come to the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. The Trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment is required to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the proposed amendment will not change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order is in complete conformity/consonance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors -– AIR 2022 SC 4256 and Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. 2024 INSC 726 and also the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. (Dharwad Bench). 7. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation is concerned, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sampath Kumar v Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C. Hanumanthappa v H.B. Shivakumar – (2016) 1 SCC 332, I am of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment has to be allowed by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to date of the suit but shall be reckoned from the date of filing the application, by leaving open the question of limitation to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8155 WP No. 4831 of 2025 (ii) The application for amendment, I.A.No.V filed by the plaintiffs stands allowed, subject to the condition 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 24.07.2024 i.e., from the date on which I.A.No.V was filed and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners- 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.: 10