- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31042 W.P. No.1824/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1824/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, J.C.ROAD BANGALURU-560002 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, CHANAMMANAKERE TANK BUND BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V. ADV.,) AND: SRI. BAPUJI SLUM DWELLERS SOCIETY NO.146, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD VI BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-82 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. B. SRINIVAS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAKESH M.T. ADV., FOR SRI. M.V. CHANDRA SHEKARA REDDY, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN OS.NO.433/2013 AND AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED ON I.A.NO.9 PASSED ON DATED 23.09.2020 PASSED BY THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A. ALLOWED THE APPLICATION Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31042 W.P. No.1824/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC FILED IN O.S.NO.433/2013 AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER FROM THE STAGE OF WHERE IT WAS STOPPED PRIOR TO FILING OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION & 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 23.09.2020 passed on IA.No.9 in O.S.No.433/2013 by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.Bathe Gowda K.V., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction, in which the petitioners had filed a written statement. Later, they sought amendment of the written statement, which came to be rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order. It is submitted that the earlier counsel could not plead the entire facts and upon securing the records from the BDA, the petitioners came - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31042 W.P. No.1824/2021 to know that the suit schedule property had been acquired by the BDA way back in 1963 pursuant to the acquisition notifications and that an award had also been passed in respect of the said land. It is further submitted that these facts are necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Rakesh M.T., learned counsel for Sri.M.V.Chandra Shekara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has passed well reasoned order which clearly indicates that the matter had already been posted for final arguments. Thereafter, an application to recall and reopen the stage of cross-examination of PW1 was filed, which was allowed, permitting the defendants to cross-examine the witness. At that stage, after a period of 7 years, the defendants filed an application seeking amendment of the written - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31042 W.P. No.1824/2021 statement without any due diligence. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent has filed OS.No.433/2013 against the petitioners seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners filed written statement on 04.09.2013 denying the averments made in the plaint. The records indicate that the plaintiff adduced the evidence and thereafter the matter was posted for the defendants evidence. Despite being granted sufficient time, the defendants failed to adduce the evidence. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application seeking recall of PW1 for the purpose of cross-examination. However, instead of cross-examining PW1 and adducing their evidence, they filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31042 W.P. No.1824/2021 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the written statement. 6. It is required to be noticed that the defendants had filed a written statement on 04.09.2013. PW1 has adduced the evidence and the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1. As the defendants failed to cross-examine PW1, the cross-examination of PW1 was taken as nil on 18.10.2019. Thereafter, the matter was posted for the defendants' evidence. Even then, the defendants failed to adduce any evidence, resulting in their evidence being taken as nil vide order dated 02.01.2020, and the matter was posted for final arguments. It is further to be noticed that the defendants filed IA.No.7 seeking recall and reopen of PW1 for cross- examination, and the same was also allowed by the trial Court by showing indulgence. However, the defendants neither availed the opportunity granted nor adduced any evidence. Instead, they filed an application under Order VI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31042 W.P. No.1824/2021 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. 7. A perusal of the proposed amendment to the written statement indicates that the defendants intend to bring on record that the suit schedule property situated in Sy.No.30 of Karisandra Village, Uttarahally Hobli, Bengaluru had been acquired by the BDA for the purpose of formation of Banashankari 2nd stage under preliminary notification dated 07.03.1963, followed by the final notification, possession was taken by the BDA and an award had also been passed. 8. It is specifically contended that the possession of the said land was taken over by the BDA and thereafter, the possession was handed over to the petitioner/BBMP. The petitioners also denied the right of the plaintiff based on the agreement of sale dated 01.02.1984. It is also to be noticed that the application seeking amendment of the written statement was filed after a period of 7 years and at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31042 W.P. No.1824/2021 the stage when the matter was posted for final arguments. The affidavit filed in support of the application seeking amendment does not indicate any due diligence. In the absence of any such due diligence or reasons for such delay, the grounds urged in support of the amendment are unacceptable. Hence, in my considered view, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed at the fag end of the trial. I do not find any merit in the petition calling for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25