- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1768 WP No. 381 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 381 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI ISHWAR S. KADAKOL S/O S.K. KADAKOL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.S-6, 2ND FLOOR BALAJI APARTMENT AMRUTHANAGARA, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 92 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. H. V. KALAPANA W/O L. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.71, 1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU – 03 …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNEXURE-A - ORDER DATED 24-11-2025 - ALLOWED THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.8, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.6626/2023, PENDING IN XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-43), BY ALLOWING THE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1768 WP No. 381 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.6626/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.6626/2023 by the XLII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-43) (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said application, I.A.No.8 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction and for other reliefs, which was converted into a suit for declaration. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed one more application for amendment for incorporation of additional prayer for mandatory injunction. By the impugned order, the Trial court allowed the said application by holding as under: “Counsel for the defendant is present. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1768 WP No. 381 of 2026 Advocate for plaintiff submitted that he will seek extension of time before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.2957/2025 and 2951/2025 in view of converting the suit for declaration. Heard both side on IA.No.8 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. This application is filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. By way of amendment plaintiff is intending to seek relief of declaration of ownership, declaration of sale deed dated: 25.08.2021 as null and void and seeking possession and demolition of illegal construction. Defendant filed objection stating that the nature of the suit will change if the amendment is allowed. Initially the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction, later it is amended for mandatory injunction. Now plaintiff is intending to claim the relief of declaration of ownership as well as possession of alleged encroachment. Still issues are not framed by this Court. It is well settled position of law the amendment pretrial stage shall be considered liberally. Hence, considering the nature of the suit, stage of the suit IA.No.8 is allowed with cost of Rs.500/-. Plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint and file amended plaint. Issue notice on IA.No.9 and 10 to proposed defendant No.14 through speed post. Call on 05.01.2026.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1768 WP No. 381 of 2026 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Further, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner- defendant to file additional written statement, if any to the amended plaint. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85