- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26644 WP No. 3168 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3168 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA K S/O KADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O KADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SRI. NAGARAJU K S/O KADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 4. SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S/O KADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT : NO. 197, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ERANAPALYA, SRIGANDHADA KAVALU VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU 560 091. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEEN REDDY M V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26644 WP No. 3168 of 2021 AND: 1. SRI. GANGANARASAIAH S/O DODDA PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. SMT. SHOBHA D/O GANGANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT : No. 641, 12TH CROSS EAST WEST COLLEGE ROAD, BHARATHNAGAR, ANJANINAGAR BENGALURU 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. C. JAYAKIRTHI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2021 PASSED BY THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-9) IN O.S.NO.7563/2017 ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION (IA NO.4) VIDE ANNEXURE- E AND ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION (IA-4) FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN O.S.NO.7563/2017, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-9) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26644 WP No. 3168 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2021 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.7563/2017 by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-9) (for short, 'the Trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri. Naveen Reddy M.V., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.M.C.Jayakeerthi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.7563/2017 for the relief of Permanent Injunction against the respondents-defendants and their family members or anybody claiming under them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule 'A' to 'D' properties referred in the plaint. The defendants filed detailed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking to amend the plaint which - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26644 WP No. 3168 of 2021 came to be rejected by the Trial Court mainly on the grounds that there cannot be joinder of cause of action, the prayer sought in the amendment were within the knowledge of the defendants, the amendment was sought with a delay of 2 years from the date of filing of written statement and one of the prayer is barred by law of limitation. It is to be noticed that the application for amendment is filed even before the framing of the Issues, when the matter was set down for hearing on Interlocutory Application. 4. The perusal of the proposed amendment indicates that the petitioners-plaintiffs intend to narrate the flow of title with regard to the properties, they intend to bring the fact before the Court that the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule properties after filing of the suit and also seeking additional prayer of declaration of ownership, and also sought a prayer for demolition of the building put up in the Schedule 'B' to 'D' properties and in the road/passage as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26644 WP No. 3168 of 2021 per Schedule 'E' to 'G' properties and also sought possession of the same and further prayer to declare the Gift Deed dated 30.01.2013 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. 5. The Trial Court considering the rival submissions rejected the said application under the impugned order. It is to be noticed that the later interference of the defendants and putting up the construction as per the proposed amendment is after filing of the suit. Hence it is required to be allowed. Whether there is an interference by the defendants during the pendency of the suit or not is a matter of trial. Hence, such a pleading is required to be brought on record, as the same is a subsequent event after filing of the suit and plaintiff can be asked to file another suit. 6. Insofar as narration of flow of title and additional prayers is concerned, in my considered view, those prayers are also required to be allowed in view of the stand taken by the respondents-defendants in their written - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26644 WP No. 3168 of 2021 statement as they have specifically stated that a Gift Deed is executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, the petitioners are seeking to declare that the Gift Deed dated 30.01.2013 is null and void and not binding on them. 7. Insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned, in my considered view, the same cannot be gone into at this stage, as the petitioners have categorically made a statement in the application that only after filing of the written statement, the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the Gift Deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, the issue of limitation is required to be considered at the time of trial. Keeping such a contention open to the defendants to be raised in the suit, I am of the considered the view that the proposed amendment is sought at the earliest stage of the suit and hence it is required to be allowed by permitting the defendants to file additional written statement, if any. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26644 WP No. 3168 of 2021 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned dated 30.01.2021 passed in O.S.No.7563/2017 by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-9), is set aside. (iii) Consequently, I.A.No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs is allowed. (iv) The respondents-defendants are permitted to file additional written statement, if any. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE DL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23