- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10561 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DR. SREEKARA SWAMY R., SON OF LATE.S.RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SUMUKA' MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR - 572 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.144, 2ND CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU - 560 056. SRI.R.RAMACHANDRAIAH, SINCE DEAD LR'S ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. 2. SMT.LALITHA, D/O NARASHIMAIAH, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023 MAJOR, R/AT NO.69/3, 19TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 010. 3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O M.S.VEERANNAGOWDA, MAJOR, R/A NO.309, 1ST STAGE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010. 4. SMT.B.R.NAGAVENI, W/O HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.95, 23RD MAIN ROAD, JAIMARUTHINAGARA, NANDINI BHADAVANE, BENGALURU - 560 096. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2023) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023, PASSED IN O.S.NO.722/2010 BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, ON IA NO.V FILED BY THE R1 UNDER ORDER V RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023 PROCEDURE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A.NO.V, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 19.04.2023 passed in OS No.722 of 2010 by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court', for short) on IA.No.V filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). 2. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar K. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Somashekaraiah H.M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent No.1 has filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023 herein and respondents No.2 to 4. In the said suit, the petitioner filed a detailed written statement denying plaint averments. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking to amend the plaint on 09.06.2011. The proposed amendment indicate the narration of certain facts with regard to the possession and title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has sought the additional prayer of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that there is delay of 8 years in filing an application and due to proposed amendment the jurisdiction of the Court would change. Admittedly, the matter was at the stage of trial, the counsel for the plaintiff has pressed the application for amendment which came to be allowed by the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023 4. It is not in dispute that the application seeking for amendment is filed before commencement of the trial and at the earliest stage of proceedings. However, the Trial Court has not considered the said application and it was pending before it. It has considered the application after the commencement of trial and allowed the same. In my considered view, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC would not come in the way of plaintiff seeking amendment. The proposed amendment is narration of facts with regard to the possession as well as the title and also seeking additional prayer of declaration of ownership, in my considered view, ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner herein is allowed to file additional written statement to such amendment. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that the application was not pressed by the plaintiff for more than 8 years. Hence, the same is required to be allowed on cost. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023 5. For the aforementioned reasons. I am of the view that the impugned order of the Trial Court would not call for any interference. However, allowing application filed by the plaintiff in IA.No.V under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is with a condition that the plaintiff shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner herein. In view of the disposal of main petition, pending I.A.No.1 of 2025 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12