- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29698 WP No. 3833 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. 3833 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGASANDRAMMA W/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT DODDAKARENAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL 2. SMT. SUDHA W/O BHARATHKUMAR S., D/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.87, 6TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 023 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI G. LOKESHWAR S/O LATE GOKHALERAMAKRISHNADAS, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, “B” BLOCK, MDTC QUARTERS, KVIC, VIJINAPURA DOORAVANINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 060 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29698 WP No. 3833 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 9.12.2025 IN O.S.NO. 8820/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-26) VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on IA.No.8 in OS.No.8820/2019 dated 09.12.2025 by the X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore the petitioner/defendant is before this court. 2. The respondent herein filed a suit OS.No.8820/2019 seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering/tresspassing over the suit schedule property. In that I.A.No.8 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. After the suit is filed, on 22.12.2021 a temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession till the disposal of the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were defying and violating the order of temporary - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29698 WP No. 3833 of 2026 injunction and kept on interfering with the peacefull possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also filed a contempt application against the defendants which is numbered as Misc.No.1254/2023. It is the case that in the morning hours on 26.10.2024, when the plaintiff has visited the site, to his surprise, a ACC roofed shed structure has been put up on the suit schedule property and after the enquiry he has found out that the defendants violating the injunction order and defeating the rights of the plaintiff have put up the construction. It is stated that evidence has just commenced and the petitioners have just let in the evidence and it is at the stage of cross- examination. If the application is not allowed and if the plaintiff is not permitted to amend the prayer seeking mandatory injunction against defendants to demolish the ACC roofed shed, it would cause lot of hardship to the plaintiff. The trial court by order impugned had allowed the IA.No.8. The trial court observed that there is no serious dispute with regard to the suit schedule property, both in respect of title and possession. Further, as per Order VI Rule 17 of CPC no amendment can be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the party is able to show that in spite of due - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29698 WP No. 3833 of 2026 difficulties, they couldn’t seek the proposed amendment before the commencement of the trial. But in the present case, according to the plaintiff, it is after the institution of the suit and after the commencement of the trial, the defendants have interfered over the suit schedule property and put up a shed on it. The merits of these contentions cannot be considered at this stage and they are required to be proved during the trial and the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to establish it. Defendants have taken up the contention that they have constructed the house on the suit schedule property long back which can be decided by the court during the course of trial and accordingly allowed the IA. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that several times the plaintiff has sought time to argue the IA and on one occasion when the defendant was not present, the court had posted the matter for orders and accordingly allowed the application. It is submitted that no opportunity is given to the defendant. 4. Then this court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant to submit his arguments on the merits of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29698 WP No. 3833 of 2026 the matter how the order is bad. It is submitted by the counsel that after the commencement of the trial this application is allowed and an application under Order VI Rule 17 cannot be entertained after the commencement of the trial. The plaintiff without seeking the declaration of title cannot maintain the instant prayer. All these aspects were not considered by the court. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. Initially suit was filed for bare injunction. According to the plaintiff, the defendant in spite of an order of injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs peace-full possession and enjoyment of the property has erected a structure and he has given a specific date for that, by that time the evidence was started. In those circumstances the trial court has held that after the commencement of the trial the amendment cannot be allowed will not apply to the facts of the case, as that the instant had taken place after the commencement of the trial. The trial court has rightly held that all these aspects have to be proved during - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29698 WP No. 3833 of 2026 the course of the trial and the burden lies on the plaintiff and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. 6. In the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has rightly considered and allowed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. 7. Accordingly, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22