- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23050 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 23049 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 23050/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI L.A. MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. ABDULLAH HAJI, R/AT NO.56, 1ST D CROSS, 3RD STAGE, IV BLOCK, S.N.LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.N. JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M. MUNIYAPPA MAJOR S/O LATE SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA, 2. SRI. M. PAPANNA MAJOR S/O LATE SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA, 3. SRI. M. RAJAPPA MAJOR S/O LATE SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.746 KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MUNIYELLAPPA GARDEN Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 AT NO.524F, 8TH CROSS, BENGALURU-560008. 4. SRI.K.N.YELLAPPA MAJOR, S/O LATE SRI.K.T.NARAYANAPPA, RESIDENT OF MASJID ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560008. 5. M/S LAND LINKS ASSOCIATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.433/4, 11TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560080 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.R.VENKATESH, S/O SRI.M.V.RAMANNA 6. SRI. V. RAVISHANKAR MAJOR S/O SRI. VENKATAKRISHNA, NO.,433 /4 , 11TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE-560080. 7. SRI.B.N.CHABBRIA MAJOR FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF NO.,433 /4 , 11TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE-560080. 8. SRI. NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 9. SRI MOHAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 10. SRI GIRI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 11. SRI. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 12. SRI. GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL SONS OF LATE SRI. M. KRISHNA ALL ARE R/AT 746, MUNIYELLAPPA GARDEN, KODIHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE-560 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M S RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 25.02.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5, R6, R8, R11 AND R12 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 03.06.2025, NOTICE TO R9 AND R10 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2017 AT ANNX-C PASSED IN OS.NO.4986/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE IX ADDL. CITY CIVILAND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-8). IN WP NO. 23049/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI L.A. MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. ABDULLAH HAJI, R/AT NO.56, 1ST D CROSS, 3RD STAGE, IV BLOCK, S.N.LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560079. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.N. JAYADEVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M MUNIYAPPA MAJOR Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 S/O LATE SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA, 2. SRI. M. PAPANNA MAJOR S/O LATE SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA, 3. SRI. M. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.746 KODIHALLI VILLAGE, MUNIYELLAPPA GARDEN AT NO.524F, 8TH CROSS, BENGALURU-560008 4. SRI.K.N. YELLAPPA MAJOR, S/O LATE SRI.K.T.NARAYANAPPA, RESIDENT OF MASJID ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560008. 5. M/S LAND LINKS ASSOCIATES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.433/4, 11TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560080 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.R.VENKATESH, S/O SRI.M.V.RAMANNA 6. SRI. V. RAVISHANKAR MAJOR S/O SRI. VENKATAKRISHNA, NO.,433 /4 , 11TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE-560080. 7. SRI.B.N.CHABBRIA MAJOR FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 NO.,433 /4 , 11TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE-560080. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.B. AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 AND R1(A); SRI. M.S. RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 03.06.2025, NOTICE TO R9 AND R10 HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 03.06.2025, W.P. AGAINST R8, R11, R12 ON I.A. 1/2018 AND R5 AND R6 STANDS DISMISSED; R7 AND R1(C) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2016 AT ANNEX-E, IA NO.6 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4986/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-8). THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER W.P.No.23050/2017 is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-8) in O.S.No.4986/2006, whereby the learned Trial Judge has proceeded to impound a document which had already been admitted in evidence and marked without objection. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 2. The controversy in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal1, has reiterated the settled position that once a document is admitted in evidence and marked without any objection as to its admissibility on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty, the party who permitted such document to be marked cannot subsequently seek to reopen the issue of its admissibility, nor can the Court, at a subsequent stage, recall the order of admission and permit such an objection to be raised. 3. In the present case, admittedly, the document had already been admitted in evidence and marked without objection. In the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge could not have subsequently proceeded to impound the very same document and reopen the question of its sufficiency of stamp duty in the manner in which it has 1 2007 AIR SCW 234 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 been done. The order impugned, therefore, runs contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and cannot be sustained. 4. Accordingly, W.P.No.23050/2017 deserves to be allowed and the order dated 09.03.2017 is liable to be set aside. 5. W.P.No.23049/2014 is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.4986/2006, whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the cause-title has been rejected. 6. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking specific performance of the contract. Subsequently, the plaintiff noticed that the name of one of the partners had been incorrectly typed in the cause-title on account of a typographical error. On noticing the said mistake, the Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 plaintiff filed I.A.No.6 seeking amendment of the cause-title so as to correctly reflect the name of the concerned partner. 7. The learned Trial Judge, however, rejected the application primarily on the ground that the proposed amendment would alter the cause of action and might result in introduction of a new party to the suit. The learned Trial Judge also declined to entertain the application on the ground that the same had been filed after a lapse of about five years. 8. The reasons so assigned by the learned Trial Judge cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. A mistake in the cause-title, particularly where it is demonstrably attributable to a typographical or clerical error, ought not to be viewed with undue technicality. The Court is required to adopt a liberal approach while considering such an amendment, particularly when the proposed correction is intended only to bring the record in Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 conformity with the actual identity of the party and does not introduce a substantially new cause of action. 9. The mere fact that the application came to be filed after some lapse of time, by itself, could not have constituted a ground to reject the application when the proposed amendment was only to correct the name of a partner in the cause-title. What is required to be examined is whether the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit or causes any irremediable prejudice to the opposite party. In the present case, the proposed amendment does not appear to alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action. 10. It is equally significant that no serious or irreparable prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the amendment is permitted. Any apprehension of prejudice can adequately be addressed by permitting the defendants to file an amended written statement, if so advised. Procedural rules are intended to facilitate Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 adjudication of the real controversy between the parties and not to defeat substantive rights on account of an inadvertent typographical error. 11. The learned Trial Judge, therefore, fell in error in rejecting I.A.No.6 on the grounds assigned in the impugned order. The order dated 28.07.2016 suffers from an erroneous approach and is liable to be set aside. 12. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) Both writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-8), in O.S.No.4986/2006, impounding the document, is hereby quashed and set-aside in W.P.No.23050/2017. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 (iii) The order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.4986/2006 is hereby quashed and set-aside in W.P.No.23049/2014. (iv) Consequently, I.A.No.6 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. (v) The petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to amend the cause-title of the plaint in terms of I.A.No.6. Upon carrying out the amendment, the plaintiff shall furnish an amended copy of the plaint to the defendants. (vi) O.S.No.4986/2006 is of the year 2006. The learned Trial Judge shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously and, in any event, at the earliest possible opportunity, subject to the Court’s docket and without granting unnecessary adjournments. (vii) The parties shall extend their full co-operation for the early disposal of the suit. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058872017 NC: 2026:KHC:49340 WP No. 23050 of 2017 C/W WP No. 23049 of 2017 (viii) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified