- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21736 WP No. 20158 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 20158 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.SHIVARAMU N S/O LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O NO.86 5TH MAIN ROAD 3RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE KAVERI NAGAR MANDYA-571401. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SMT: B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.NANJUNDAIAH S/O CHIKKAPUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS C/O K SIDDARAMU NO.3897, POORNIMA SADANA OPP: TO BASAVESHWARA PROVISION STORE 3RD CROSS, SHANKAR NAGAR MANDYA - 571 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: CHANDRASHEKAR H.B., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2021 ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.221/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-E; QUASH THE ORDER DATED Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21736 WP No. 20158 of 2022 09.02.2022 ON I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.221/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-G; DIRECT ALLOWING IA.N.II IN OS NO.221/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIIVL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS WP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging order dated 23.02.2021 passed on IA.2 and order dated 09.02.2022 passed on IA.3 in OS No.221 of 2017 by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya (for short 'the Trial Court'). 2. Heard Smt B V Vidyulatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H B Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner filed OS No.221 of 2017 against the respondent seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The respondent-defendant filed detailed written statement denying the assertion made in the plaint. During the pendency of these - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21736 WP No. 20158 of 2022 proceedings, the petitioner filed IA.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, seeking to amend the plaint on the ground that the defendant without leaving set back started putting up the construction in his property, which infringes the plaintiff's right and he has completed the construction. Hence, the relief of mandatory injunction was sought in the said application. 4. The said application was opposed by the defendant. The Trial Court under the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 rejected IA.2 mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to seek the relief of declaration. Admittedly, the said order is not challenged by the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the petitioner thereafter filed another application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking to incorporate subsequent events in the plaint and also sought for additional relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said application was numbered as IA.3 and the same was opposed by the defendant. 5. The Trial Court under the impugned order dated 09.02.2022 rejected the said application on the ground that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21736 WP No. 20158 of 2022 prima facie, no justifiable grounds are made out to consider the application and the prayer sought is barred by law of limitation. It is to be noticed that the Trial Court on the earlier occasion when it passes order on IA.2 has recorded the reasons that the amendment sought for mandatory injunction alone is not maintainable unless a declaratory relief is sought. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking the relief of declaration as well as mandatory injunction. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that the prayer sought is barred by period of limitation. 6. The question of limitation, in my considered view, is required to be looked into by the Trial Court during the course of trial and recording such a finding on an application was uncalled for at this stage. It is also to be noticed that there would not be any prejudice to the defendant, if the present applications are allowed, as the defendant would have all the opportunity to file the additional written statement to the amended plaint. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21736 WP No. 20158 of 2022 ORDER (i) The Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 23.02.2021 as well as 09.02.2022 passed on IA.2 and IA.3 in OS No.221 of 2017 are set aside. (iii) Consequently, IA.2 and IA.3 are allowed. The petitioner shall file the amended plaint within two weeks. (iv) The respondent is at liberty to file additional written statement by raising all the contentions including the aspect of limitation and the Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law, at the time of disposal of the suit. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6