- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26899 WP No. 9607 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9607 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. MANJUNATHA P., S/O SRI DODDANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PROP. M/S KANCHI CO. SRI HANUMAN SILKS, NO. 198, GROUND FLOOR, ARIHANT COMPLEX, CHIKPET, BENGALURU 560 053 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S DAYALAL AND SONS REP. BY ITS KARTA MR.DILIP KUMAR DAYALAL, S/O SRI DAYALAL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, NO. 198, FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR, ARIHANT COMPLEX, CHIKPET, BENGALURU – 560 053 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KIRAN S.JAVALI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SRIPAL J SANGHVI, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26899 WP No. 9607 of 2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-88) IN COM OS NO. 243/2024, ORDER DATED: 14.03.2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN RESPECT OF IA NO. 5 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R.W SEC 151 OF CPC AND IA NO. 6 UNDER XIV RULE 5(1) R/W SEC 151 OF CPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID IA NO. 5 AND 6 AS PRAYED FOR IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A Nos.5 and 6 in Com.O.S.No.243/2024 dated 14.03.2025 passed by LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, the defendant is before this Court. 2. I.A.No.5 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 seeking permission to amend the written statement. It is stated that due to oversight, some pleadings were not mentioned in the written statement and hence they need to amend the written statement. When it comes to I.A.No.6, he has filed an IA under Order XIV Rule 5 R/w Section 151 of CPC requesting the trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26899 WP No. 9607 of 2025 Court to frame two additional issues, i.e. whether the defendant proves that the court fee paid is not proper and whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. The trial Court, as far as I.A.No.5 is concerned, had dismissed the same observing that the court has gone through the proposed amendment to be made in the written statement. On perusal of the proposed amendment, defendant is again contending that plaintiff has no locus-standi to file this suit and he is having other commercial premises in the same building and is getting rents and has no requirement of the scheduled premises. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant has already taken his defence which the defendant now intends to insert by way of amendment. This could be seen in paragraph 9 to 11 of the written statement. Hence the present amendment is not necessary. 4. Then when it comes to the IA No. 6, the trial court has observed that the additional issues to be framed are whether the defendant proves the court fees paid is correct or not and whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26899 WP No. 9607 of 2025 dismissed. The trial court has observed that the said framing of issues and casting burden on the defendant is unknown to the civil jurisprudence and further it is observed that there are no specific pleading in the written statement. Based on the said vague averments, the court cannot frame an issue and accordingly, both the I.As were dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the defendant has taken a pleading with regard to the proper and necessary parties in the written statement. The paragraphs that have to be inserted by way of the amendment are in furtherance to the earlier pleadings and he is not taking any new grounds or making out a new case. It is further submitted that it would not cause prejudice to the defendants. Further it is submitted that the court fee that is paid by the plaintiff is not correct and the court ought to have framed an issue and ought to have considered the same. Even with regard to the proper and necessary parties, an issue ought to have been framed. It is submitted that the Court in a very hyper technical manner without considering the application and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26899 WP No. 9607 of 2025 submission of the counsel in its proper perspective had dismissed the application. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioner is not paying the rents and is utilizing the premises and as of now an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- including GST is due. It is submitted that the court has rightly considered both the applications and based on the vague pleadings, no issues can be framed. Even on the amendment application, Court has rightly considered and dismissed and no interference is called for. It is submitted that there may be a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent which is running into lakhs. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, perused the material on record. Firstly, coming to I.A.No.5 which is filed for amendment of the pleadings, this Court has perused the affidavit that is filed in support of the IA and the amendment that is sought to be introduced in the pleadings. The finding of the trial Court is that these pleadings were not taken earlier and hence it is unnecessary in the considered opinion of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26899 WP No. 9607 of 2025 Court and cannot be sustained. After perusal of the affidavit and the additional pleadings which the petitioner sought to introduce by amendment, the basis is already made in the original pleadings and the same has been expanded by way of this IA where he wants to amend the pleadings and those pleadings will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and in fact would facilitate the Court to decide the dispute between the parties. As such this Court is of view that the order passed on IA No. 5 needs to be set aside. 8. Then coming to the IA No.6 with regard to the additional issues to be framed, as far as the first issue with regard to the court fee is concerned, when the petitioner has raised a ground, if the court considers the said issue and gives a finding that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct, he would be paying the same. This court is not able to understand why the court has dismissed the same. As far as the second issue is concerned, there are no specific pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff and the court has rightly held that basing on the vague pleadings, issues cannot be framed. The court observed that the burden upon the defendant which is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26899 WP No. 9607 of 2025 unknown to the Civil Jurisprudence. In that case, the court can frame the issue “whether Court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper or not?” 9. In the light of the above, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed by the trial Court in IA No.5 in Com.O.S.No.243/2024 dated 14.03.2025 is set aside and consequently, IA No.5 is allowed. ii. IA No. 6 is partly allowed and as far as the issue with regard to the Court fee is concerned, the Court shall frame the issue and shall expeditiously decide the suit. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1