- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2573/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. SHAMAIAH @ M. SHAMA REDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS. 2. SRI. M. DORESWAMY REDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED 75 YEARS. 3. SRI. M. NAGARAJ S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED 70 YEARS. 4. SRI. P. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED 60 YEARS. 5. SRI. P. SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED 58 YEARS. 6. SRI. M.P. SUDHAKAR S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED 56 YEARS. 7. SRI. P. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED 54 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT M.S. NAGAR MARATHAHALLI EXTENSION Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 MUNNNEKOLALA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 037. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SURAJ SAMPATH, ADV.,) AND: THE KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION POORNIMA BUILDINGS, 1ST CROSS J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-74) IN O.S.NO.25924/2015 (ANNEXURE-A) ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FILED BY PETITIONERS AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a) To set-aside the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Hon’ble LXXIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-74) in OS.No.25924/2015 (Annexure-A) on Interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of the Civil Procedure filed by Petitioner and allow the said application for amendment. b) Grant the costs of this petition in equity.” 2. Sri.B.K.Sampath Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri.Suraj Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the respondent filed a written statement, and thereafter, the trial Court framed the issues. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating an additional prayer for a declaration that the defendant's right had been extinguished as it failed to take possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to the grant and thus, has no legal right to dispossess the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the defendant opposed the said application. The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the application by erroneously recording findings on the merits of the application. It is further submitted that the trial Court has recorded the reasons that the plaintiffs had earlier filed two suits seeking the relief of declaration, and they cannot seek similar relief by way of amendment in the present suit. It is also submitted that such a finding of the trial Court on an application was uncalled for, as to whether the suit is maintainable or not is required to be gone into by the trial Court while deciding the suit on merits, after the parties have adduced evidence. 3. It is contended that the relief sought in earlier suits for declaration was altogether different and the now relief for declaration is that the defendant has extinguished its right to take possession of the property. Hence, the trial Court has misread the prayers in the former suits and the latter suit. It is further contended - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 that, even otherwise also, the application for amendment was filed at the initial stage of the proceedings and as a matter of course, it is required to be allowed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i. Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra and Another1 ii. Vidyabai & Others v. Padmalatha and Another2 iii. Surendra Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh3 iv. Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and Others4 v. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K. K. Modi and Others5 vi. Lakha Ram Sharma v. Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd.6 vii. Rame Gowda by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu by LRs and Another7 viii. Surekha Nataraj and Others v. R. Meenakshi8 ix. Haridas Mahadev Sasne v. Tejaswini Krushnat Bhosle9 x. Suvarnamma v. H.N. Lohiteshwara10 1 (2018) 2 SCC 132 2 (2009) 2 SCC 409 3 LAWS (SC) 2009 (9) 45 4 (2007) 6 SCC 167 5 (2006) 4 SCC 385 6 (2008) 17 SCC 671 7 AIR (2004) SC 4609 8 WP.No.2974/2024 dated 02.02.2024 by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka 9 LAWS (BOM) 2025 (3) 22 10 LAWS (KAR) 2023 (6) 85 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 4. Despite service of notice, there is no representation for the respondent. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioners filed OS.No.25924/2015 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, servant, or anybody claiming under it from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the defendant filed a written statement and thereafter, the trial Court framed the issues. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment indicates that the petitioners are seeking for incorporation of an additional prayer for declaration that the defendant's right has been extinguished as it failed to take possession - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 of the suit schedule property pursuant to the grant and thus has no legal right to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. To substantiate the said prayer, additional pleadings were sought to be introduced in paragraph Nos.8-A to 8-D. The defendant opposed the said application. The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the application solely on the ground that the petitioners/plaintiffs had earlier filed suits in OS.No.9544/1998 and OS.No.2278/1993, which were clubbed together, wherein reliefs of declaration had already been sought. 7. The primary contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the relief of declaration sought in the former suits is altogether different, as in the said suit, relief of declaration was that the plaintiffs had perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession, whereas the present relief of declaration is that the defendant’s right to seek possession of the suit - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 schedule property has been extinguished as it failed to take possession pursuant to the grant. 8. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in recording the findings on the merits of the application. Ultimately, whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction and now sought for relief of declaration is required to be adjudicated on merits and if the present application is allowed, it would not amount into decreeing the suit for declaration as sought in the application. Admittedly, the application filed by the plaintiffs is at the initial stage of the proceedings, even before the commencement of the trial; hence, as a matter of course the application needs to be allowed keeping all the contentions open. In view of the aforesaid findings, the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners need not be gone into. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010051522020 NC: 2026:KHC:39091 W.P. No.2573/2020 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed in OS.No.25924/2015 by the LXXIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-74) is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed. iii. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall file amended plaint within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. iv. The defendant is permitted to file an additional written statement, if any, within a period of three weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20