- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29954 W.P. No.3542/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3542/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: C. SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O CHOWDE GOWDA R/O NO.24, 1ST CROSS MUNIMARAPPA GARDEN KEB LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K.V. ADV., FOR SRI. AMAR GOWDA, ADV.,) AND: C. HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE CHOKKAPPA R/O. KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D. MANJUNATH, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 1.2.2021 MADE ON I.A.II UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN COM.O.S.NO.1728/2018 BY THE COURT LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-84) AND ALLOW THE IA NO.II IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29954 W.P. No.3542/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.02.2021 passed on IA.No.2 in Com.OS.No.1728/2018 by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-84), (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.K.V.Manjunath, learned counsel for Sri.Amar Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.D.Manjunath, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The respondent filed Com.OS.No.1728/2018 against the petitioner herein seeking judgment and decree for a sum of Rs.1,00,50,000/- along with the upto date interest to the tune of Rs.54,27,000/- with pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed a detailed written statement on 02.07.2018. The records indicate that the aforesaid suit is transferred to the Commercial Court and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29954 W.P. No.3542/2021 petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the written statement which was opposed by the respondent by filing statement of objections. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application which is challenged in this petition. 4. It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the respondent is for recovery of money based on the agreement dated 29.09.2010 between the parties. To substantiate the relief sought in the plaint, the respondent has made detailed averments, which has been denied by the petitioner/defendant in his written statement filed on 02.07.2018. The defendant sought to amend the written statement and the proposed amendment to the written statement indicates that the defendant intends to add paragraph No.24(a) to 24(h) in the written statement. The perusal of the averments made in the proposed written statement indicates that it is pertaining to acquisition of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29954 W.P. No.3542/2021 land in question by the State Government as well as the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) for the formation of layout. The proposed amendments further indicate that there is challenge to the acquisition proceedings and ultimately the acquisition proceedings were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. It is further to be noticed that the proposed amendment has nothing to do with the lis between the parties. The amendment has been sought after more than two and a half (2½) years after the filing of the written statement. The suit, is one for recovery of money based on the agreement produced before the Commercial Court, and the petitioner/defendant has already taken his stand. It is also to be noticed that the application does not disclose how any prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the proposed amendment is not permitted. It is also required to be noticed here that in a commercial suit, a written statement is required to be filed within a period of 120 days. In the present case, the application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29954 W.P. No.3542/2021 seeking amendment of the written statement has been filed after a lapse of more than two and a half (2½) years from the filing of written statement. On this ground also the application cannot be entertained. The trial Court, considering various aspects including the contention of the petitioner that he could not seek the amendment immediately in view of the COVID-19, has recorded its reason and rejected the application. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others1 and contends that the amendments are required to be allowed as a matter of course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has referred to the decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. 1 2024 INSC 726 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29954 W.P. No.3542/2021 and Another2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles on which, the amendment is required to be allowed. It is to be noticed that the proposed amendment sought to the written statement is not only filed after two and a half years from the filing of the original written statement but also after commencement of trial. In my considered view, allowing such belated application would deprive the very object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Hence, for the aforesaid grounds, the rejection of the application for amendment of written statement is justified. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the impugned order calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 2 2022 SCC Online SC 1128