- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26011 W.P. No.16121/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.16121/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. PANEER SELVAM S/O KUPPUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.40, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR SLUM, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALURU 560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATEESHA M.G. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O VISHWNATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 105, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR SLUM, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560010. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KUMAR PARK WEST BANGALORE 5600019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGARAJ, ADV., FOR SRI. M.S. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADV., FOR R2) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26011 W.P. No.16121/2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 05.12.2020 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH- 41) ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.184/2018 AND THEREBY ALLOWED THE APPLICATION IA NO.3 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2020 passed on IA.No.3 in OS.No.184/2018 by the XL Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-41) (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.M.G.Satheesha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents herein. In the said suit, he filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, which came to be rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order. It is submitted that the amendments sought are the later events noticed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26011 W.P. No.16121/2021 by the petitioner/plaintiff regarding the filing of another suit by respondent No.1 against the BDA without making the petitioner as a party. It is further submitted that, by way of amendment, the petitioner has also sought additional prayers for a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2015 in OS.No.7070/2013 are not binding on him and further declaration that he is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and sought direction to respondent No.2/BDA to execute a registered sale deed in respect to the suit schedule property. It is also submitted that the present application for amendment was filed at the pre-trial stage and therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the said application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.K.Nagaraj, learned counsel for Sri.M.S.Suryanaranan Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the petitioner failed to make out the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26011 W.P. No.16121/2021 reasonable grounds for allowing the amendment application. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner herein has filed OS.No.184/2018 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, the defendants have filed detailed written statements denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is to be noticed that, prior to the commencement of the trial, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment indicates that the petitioner intends to narrate the fact that respondent No.1 had filed OS.No.7070/2013 against respondent No.2/BDA without making the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26011 W.P. No.16121/2021 petitioner as a party and that the said suit came to be decreed. Consequently, the petitioner sought an additional prayer seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 in OS.No.7070/2013 are not binding on him. It is further noticed that the petitioner further sought declaration that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and seeking direction to respondent No.2/BDA to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. 6. The trial Court rejected the said application mainly on the ground that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit and amount into an improvement of the pleadings. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in recording such a finding. Admittedly, the application for amendment was filed before the commencement of evidence and the proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side as the petitioner is bringing facts before the Court with regard to the filing of suit by respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26011 W.P. No.16121/2021 No.1/defendant No.1 against respondent No.2/defendant No.2 in OS.No.7070/2013 and seeking consequential prayer based on such pleadings. 7. It is also noticed that the defendants would not suffer any prejudice on account of the proposed amendment. It is always open for the defendants to file additional written statements to such amendment. If the proposed amendment is rejected, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 05.12.2020 passed on IA.No.3 in OS.No.184/2018 by the XL Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. Consequently IA.No.3 is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26011 W.P. No.16121/2021 iii. The petitioner shall file amended plaint within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, it is open to the defendants in the suit to file additional written statements, if any. iv. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25