- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9475 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: B. NARAKESARI S/O LATE D. R. BHASHYAKAR, AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 19, 'THIRUMALA' 1ST MAIN ROAD, R P C LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: N. S. NATARAJU, S/O LATE N C SHIVANNA, AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 7211, LION BHAVAN ROAD, T. B. NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY K R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH- 3), BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.359/2022 WHEREBY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT AND CONSEQUENTLY, REJECT THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC. (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC. 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 order dated 10.02.2026, passed on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.359/2022, on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-3), Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint, the defendant is before this Court. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. In the plaint, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026 plaintiff has given a table stating that what are the amounts paid by him, which reads as under: Sl. No. Date Amount Cash/ Cheque On Account of property No. 1 12.03.2013 65,00,000 Cash 18 & 19 2 12.03.2013 65,00,000 ICICI 19 3 12.03.2013 65,00,000 HDFC 18 4 12.03.2013 65,00,000 HDFC 18 5 12.03.2013 65,00,000 HDFC 19 6 09.05.2013 50,00,000 CASH 18 & 19 7 04.08.2013 50,00,000 CASH 18 & 19 8 04.08.2013 25,00,000 HDFC 19 9 04.08.2013 25,00,000 AXIS 18 10 01.01.2015 100,00,000 CASH 18 & 19 11 23.09.2015 10,00,000 HDFC 19 12 23.09.2015 25,00,000 HDFC 19 13 23.09.2015 615000 HDFC 18 14 23.09.2015 25,00,000 HDFC 18 15 26.06.2019 205,00,000 AXIS 19 16 26.06.2019 205,00,000 AXIS 18 17 04.07.2019 1,75,500 TDS 18 18 04.07.2019 1,90,000 TDS 19 Total 5,34,81,150 3. As per the table, according to the plaintiff he had paid an amount of Rs.5,34,81,150/-. Even in the cross-examination, he admitted that as stated in the plaint he made the payments. Now, the present application is filed stating that in the above table at Serial Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, it is stated that he has paid an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- but it should have been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026 Rs.25,00,000/- and all these payments were made by way of cheques. If that amount of Rs.65,00,000/- is considered as paid, the total amount will come to Rs.6,94,84,000/-. It is submitted that it is a typographical mistake. 4. The Trial Court while allowing the application, has observed that the correction of a clerical or typographical mistake cannot be equated with withdrawal of admission unless it substantially alters the case. In the present case, the amendment appears explanatory in nature. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that allowing the amendment would fecilitate effective adjudication of the dispute and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner- defendant submits that after the amendment to the CPC Order VI Rule 17, the post trial amendments cannot be allowed unless it is averred and pleaded that in spite of due diligence the said amendment could not be carried out at an earlier stage. It is further submitted that in fact in the cross- examination, the plaintiff had admitted that he has paid an amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- as stated in the plaint. Now by allowing this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026 amendment, it amounts to taking away the admissions made by the party and that is not permissible and trial Court ought not to have allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint and hence, the order impugned needs to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel appearing to the respondent-plaintiff submits that it is a pure typographical mistake and by amending the plaint, no prejudice is caused to the defendant and in fact there is no change in the cause of action or in the nature of the suit. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has rightly considered and allowed the application and hence, there are no reasons to interference. 7. Having heard the learned Counsels on either side, perused the material on record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that in the plaint, the plaintiff had stated about payment of certain amounts and the mode of payment. Some of the payments are made by cash and some of the payments are by way of cheques. The amount of Rs.65,00,000/- at Sl.Nos. 2 to 5 of the table is paid by way of a cheques and in the end of that table, the total - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026 amount has come to Rs.5,34,81,150/-. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, if this amount is considered as Rs.65,00,000/- at Sl.Nos.2 to 5, it would come to Rs.6,94,84,000/- and moreover these payments are made by way of cheques and those cheques are part of the record. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly considered and allowed the amendment application as it is a typographical mistake and it does not amount to taking away any of the admissions made. 9. Ordinarily, the Courts will not let the parties to amend the pleadings when it changes the nature of the suit or take away the admissions that are made by the parties. At the same time, the amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed if they are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026 ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE DL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12