- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. M. SATHISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE MALIGAPPA, R/AT NO.1463, KOTE BEEDHI, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K.GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGAMMA AND KASHAPPA, R/AT NO.615, 4TH CROSS, BHARATH NAGARA, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER SRI.BHEEMRAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O GURAPPA, R/AT NEAR SRIGANDHA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, MANDIBELE ROAD, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 2. SRI.MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA, R/AT MARKET ROAD, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 3. SRI.MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA, R/AT MARKET ROAD, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA, R/AT MARKET ROAD, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 5. SRI. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 6. SRI.MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE M.NARAYANAPPA, R/AT DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 7. SRI.SHAILENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SADJYOTHAPPA, R/AT J.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 06.11.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 558/2016 ON I.A.NO.16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC, BY THE LEARNED I.ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT DEVANAHALLI, AT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 ANNX-E AND THEREBY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNX-E AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the petitioner-6th defendant is directed against the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.16 in O.S.No.558/2016 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the said application filed by the 1st respondent - plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 1st respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-6th defendant and other defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to 2 items of suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner-6th defendant, the matter was posted for plaintiffs’ evidence, prior to commencement of which, the 1st - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 respondent-plaintiff filed the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint by incorporating/adding one more item of suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-6th defendant on various grounds including contending that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation. By the impugned order, the Trial Court proceeded to allow the amendment application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondents is dispensed with 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the trial court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record and has allowed the application by holding as under:- “ORDER ON IA.NO.XVI I.A.No.16 is filed by the plaintiff Under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint. 2. It is stated in the accompanying affidavit that plaintiff has filed the suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 At the time of suit, it is pleaded that property in Sy.No.5 measuring 5 Acres 38 Guntas was acquired by Bommana Bhovi on the basis of Dharkhasth Grant. He was put in physical possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also pleaded that during lifetime, Bommana Bhovi disposed 2 Acres 27 Guntas out of the said extent in favour of 3rd parties and plaintiff has succeeded remaining extent of 3 Acres 11 Guntas and sought for declaration. In fact plaintiff succeeded the entire extent of 5 Acres 38 Guntas after death of said Bommana Bhovi. After filing of suit, defendant No.6 filed written statement and admitted that he purchased proposed item No.3. In view of the above said admission, plaintiff found the details of the property and hence it is necessary to insert the same. Plaintiff has already filed 2 suits in respect of portion of said survey number. They are pending for adjudication. The said omissions are due to the bonafide grounds and not deliberate. Hence, it is very much necessary for effective adjudication of the suit. It doesn’t alter nature of suit and cause of action. Hence, it is prayed to allow the application. 3. The defendant No.6 and 7 have filed objection stating that application is filed at belated stage. Proposed amendment was within the knowledge of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of written statement by defendant No.6 during the year 2016-17. Proposed amendment is not necessary. Plaintiff himself has categorically admitted that during the lifetime, Bommana Bhovi disposed 2 Acres 27 Guntas and hence application is not maintainable. It is barred by Law of limitation. There is no necessity to allow the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 application. To drag the case, application is filed. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record. 5. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of Declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner in possession of suit property and to declare Sale Deeds for the year 1945, 1969, 1971, 1976, 1984 and 2002 are not binding on him and for the relief of Permanent Injunction. Suit schedule is Sy.No.5 new survey number is 5/2 measuring 1 Acre 19 Guntas and 5/3 measuring 1 Acre 32 Guntas, in total it measures 3 Acres 11 Guntas. Present application is with respect to insertion of proposed item No.3 in the schedule. It is Sy.No.5, new Sy.No.5/1a measuring 36 Guntas. It is standing in the name of defendant No.6. In support of application, Sale Deed and R.T.C. are produced. R.T.C. shows the name of defendant No.6 with respect to 36 Guntas. If application is allowed, it doesn’t mean that plaintiff has proved the case. Since, this is a suit for declaration of title in respect of suit property, it is burden of the plaintiff to prove the ownership rights. In respect of proposed property also, it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove as averred. Accordingly, objection is not sustainable. There are grounds in the application. It is supported by the materials on the record. Delay can be met by imposing cost. It is also stated that in respect of portion of suit property, plaintiff has also filed other 2 suits. Hence, on perusal of entire materials on the record, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has made out the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 grounds. It is also pleaded that omissions are due to bonafide grounds and not deliberate. Accordingly, proposed amendment can be allowed. It doesn’t change nature of suit and cause of action. It will help the Court for effective adjudication of the suit. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.16 filed by the plaintiff under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure of Code is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.500/-. For amendment and amended plaint.” 4. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary to adjudicate upon the issues in controversy involved in the suit, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors. - AIR 2022 SC 4256 and Mohammad Rafi and Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025, I am of the view that the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application by passing the impugned order. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 5. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner- defendant that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation is concerned, in the light of decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and LIC Vs. Sanjeev Builders private Limited (supra), I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be modified by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date on which amendment application was filed i.e., on 24.06.2025 and by leaving the question of imitation open to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 6. At any rate, since the petitioner would be entitled to file their additional written statement to the amended plaint and put forth all defences including the defence of limitation, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if amendment is permitted, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2851 WP No. 1113 of 2026 Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) It is further directed that the proposed amendment as sought for in I.A.No.16 by the plaintiff shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but the same shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing of the application i.e., 24.06.2025. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the defendants to file additional written statement and raise all contentions including the defence of limitation etc., (iv) In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2016, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 8 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC/SRL