- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 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. 14941 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAGHAVAPURA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK – 571 111. NOTE: (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMS EVEN THOUGH SHE IS SENIOR CITIZEN) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R.C. SRINIVASAMURTHY, S/O LATE RANGARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAGHAVAPURA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK – 571 111 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 26.03.2026 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 65/2023 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GUNDLUPET IN PRODUCED AS ANNX-G CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 of 2026 BY THE PETITIONER FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT SCHEDULE. AND ETC., THIS WRIT 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 order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.II filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in R.A.No.65/2023, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.55/2019 for permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit on 01.02.2023. Against that, the respondent filed R.A.No.65/2023. In that, an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. That application was rejected by the impugned order. 3. While rejecting the application, the Appellate Court observed that the plaintiff seeks permission to amend the plaint by changing the southern boundary of the suit schedule property from “Road” to “Gravel Gundi and B Kharabu Road”, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 of 2026 and further seeks a direction against the defendant to execute the rectification deed in her favour. Though the amendment is projected as a correction of the boundary description, the surrounding circumstances and material on record disclose otherwise. It is observed that the original suit was filed seeking permanent injunction, describing the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 12.03.2003. The said description, including the southern boundary, shows “Road”, has been pleaded, and the suit was decreed. It is observed that the objection of the appellant reveals that the respondent has constructed a house over the suit property, which was not disclosed in the plaint which shows that the respondent approached the trial Court without placing the true and complete facts and obtained a decree on that basis. 4. The Appellate Court observed that the records disclose that the respondent had approached the DDLR authority in a survey appeal, wherein it was found that there was encroachment over a portion of the road and adjoining land. The dismissal of the said appeal indicates that the authorities did not accept the respondent’s claim regarding the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 of 2026 boundaries. This subsequent development casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the application. The amendment sought is not a mere clerical or typographical correction. On the contrary, it directly affects the identity, extent and physical status of the suit property. Such an amendment would materially alter the nature of the case and the foundation on which the original decree was granted. The Appellate Court observed that the proposed amendment is not a simple correction but seeks to alter the boundary and physical status of the property. Further, the suit is originally for permanent injunction; now the plaintiff seeks issuance of directions against the defendant for execution of a rectification deed in her favour. The Appellate Court observed that, more importantly, in a suit for permanent injunction, where the relief is confined to the protection of possession based on a specific property description, any amendment altering the boundary at the appellate stage would effectively introduce a new case and disturb the basis of the decree already passed. Hence, the same is not permissible, and the Appellate Court had rejected the I.A.No.II. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 of 2026 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Appellate Court is contrary to settled principles governing the amendment of pleadings and fails to appreciate that amendments are necessary to determine the real controversy. By virtue of the amendment, the plaintiff seeks correction of the boundary description. The suit remains one for permanent injunction, and neither the cause of action nor the identity of the property is altered. The finding that the amendment changes the nature of the suit is perverse and unsustainable. It is submitted that the respondent is the executant of the sale deed and is fully aware of the actual boundaries. Hence, no prejudice would be caused if the amendment is allowed. It is submitted that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been misapplied. The discrepancy came to light only during appellate proceedings. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, she is the owner of the property as per the sale deed dated 12.03.2003. The suit was filed in the year 2019 and was decreed on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 of 2026 01.02.2023. Thereafter, the appeal was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, the present application was filed. Now, the plaintiff seeks to change the boundaries and also to direct the defendant to execute the rectification deed. As rightly observed by the Appellate Court, this amounts to changing the nature of the suit. At this stage, after almost 20 years, and seeking change of boundaries at the appellate stage, the Appellate Court rightly considered the reasons stated by the petitioner and dismissed the application. The Courts cannot allow a party to amend the pleadings in a manner that changes the nature of the suit and introduces a new case. The process of entertaining this amendment petition is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to see that the dispute between the parties is settled, and to put a quietus to the litigation. But it does not mean that each and every application for amendment has to be allowed liberally. After the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, after the trial, any application that is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the burden lies on the party to aver and prove that, in spite of due diligence, these aspects could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest point of time. In this case, the sale deed is of the year 2003, the suit is of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 of 2026 year 2019, and the decree is passed in the year 2023. At this stage, this kind of application, which will alter the nature of the suit itself, cannot be entertained, and the Appellate Court rightly rejected the application, and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29