- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34489 W.P. No.3608/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3608/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH BABU S/O NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.22, 3RD CROSS AZAD NAGAR, BENGALURU 560018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL RAMACHANDRA, ADV., FOR SRI. H. RAMACHANDRA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. G. PANDURANGA RAO S/O RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO 25-C, 16TH MAIN MUNISHWARA BLOCK BENGALURU 560026. 2. SMT. SUMATHI W/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO 24, LAKSHMI NILAYA ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE ROAD AVALAHALLI JEP POST MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU 560039. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAMOD, ADV., FOR SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV., FOR R2) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34489 W.P. No.3608/2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.13 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.7820/2004 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-19) DATED 04.01.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-M BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.13 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SEC.151 OF THE CPC AND PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF TO IMPLEAD THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT SMT. SUMATHI W/O SRINIVAS AS DEFENDANT NO.2 & 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 common order dated 04.01.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.13 and 14 in O.S.No.7820/2004 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) (for short ‘the Trial Court’) 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.7820/2004 seeking for declaration, perpetual injunction and other reliefs. The said suit was filed against G.Panduranga Rao - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34489 W.P. No.3608/2022 with regard to the suit schedule property. The defendant filed a written statement on 04.12.2004 and an additional written statement on 16.11.2010. The plaintiff adduced the evidence, he was cross-examined and the matter was posted for further evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.13 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking to implead Smt.K.Sumathi as defendant No.2 in the suit. The plaintiff has also filed another application in I.A.No.14 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating the proposed amendment after paragraph 17 and also for incorporation of an additional prayer. The said applications were opposed by the defendant No.1 by contending that the plaintiff has filed a similar application in the year 2016 which was withdrawn without the leave of the Court and after a period of 14 years, these applications are filed for amendment without due diligence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34489 W.P. No.3608/2022 4. The Trial Court, under the impugned order recorded the reasons that the proposed defendant No.2 had filed O.S.No.9048/2004 against the plaintiff herein, the said aspect was brought on record in the suit wayback in the year 2011, an additional issue was framed and without any due diligence, the application is filed belatedly after commencement of the trial and proceeded to reject both the applications. It is contented by the petitioner- plaintiff that the proposed amendment would neither change the relief sought in the plaint nor change the cause of action. They are the subsequent events when the plaintiff came to know that the proposed defendant No.2 has put up construction on the portion of the property. The pleading to that effect are intended to be brought on record as prayer and the plaintiff intends to array the said party as defendant No.2. It is required to be noticed that I.A.No.13 for impleadment of the defendant No.2 was filed on 19.03.2016 and I.A.No.14 was filed on 24.07.2018. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34489 W.P. No.3608/2022 Admittedly, these applications were filed after commencement of the trial. 5. It is required to be noticed that the defendant had filed an additional written statement on 16.11.2010. In paragraph 8 of the additional written statement, the defendant has clearly stated that the proposed defendant No.2-Smt.K.Sumathi had constructed a building and she had filed O.S.No.9048/2004 seeking injunction and the same was decreed on 29.11.2007. It is to be noticed that the said construction and the filing of the suit was brought on record by the defendant in the year 2007 only and the petitioner-plaintiff has slept over the matter and he has filed these applications in the years 2016 and 2018, respectively, seeking to incorporate those facts and additional prayer in the plaint. The Trial Court, considering the aforesaid facts and also taking note of the fact that the Trial Court has framed additional issue No.6 on 07.01.2011, proceeded to reject the applications recording the finding that the plaintiff has failed to show - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34489 W.P. No.3608/2022 any due diligence, the reason assigned in the affidavit accompanying these applications are vague, and incorrect statements are also made. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court calling for interference in the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34