- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3143 WP No. 1268 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1268 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI N. JANARDHANA S/O LATE NARAYANARAO, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.1832, 1ST CROSS, 'SAMRUDDI NILAYA', ROBERTSONPET, KGF – 563 120, KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI J. MANOHARLAL S/O LATE JAWANTHRAJ, AGED 66 YEARS R/AT NO.346, 1ST CROSS, ROBERTSONPET, KGF – 563 124. KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16/12/2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.56/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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:3143 WP No. 1268 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.56/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF, whereby the application I.A.No.2 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for permission to amend the plaint and for incorporating additional pleadings and prayers was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for eviction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner-defendant, the matter was posted for plaintiffs’ evidence, prior to commencement of which, the respondent-plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of plaint by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3143 WP No. 1268 of 2026 incorporating/adding additional prayers together with corresponding pleadings in this regard. The said application was opposed by the petitioner-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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation and was neither relevant nor necessary to adjudicate the issues in controversy between the parties and that the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the proposed amendment. It is also submitted that since the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was rejected by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court, the respondents-plaintiffs would not be entitled to seek amendment of plaint on this ground also and the Trial Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3143 WP No. 1268 of 2026 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the first instance, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and other reliefs, which was subsequently sought to be converted into a suit seeking additional relief of recovery of Rs.3,90,924/- by way of amendment. Though the various contentions and averments made in the proposed amendment are refuted/disputed by the petitioner, it is well settled that the legality, correctness and merits/demerits of the proposed amendment would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court during the course of trial and not at the stage of considering an application for amendment as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors – AIR 2006 SC 1647. 6. 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 v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors -– AIR 2022 SC 4256, I am of the view that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3143 WP No. 1268 of 2026 Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application by passing the impugned order. 7. 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 28.10.2024 and by leaving the question of imitation open to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 8. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3143 WP No. 1268 of 2026 Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) The amendment that was allowed by the trial court as sought for in I.A.No.2 shall be subject to the condition that the same shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from 28.10.2024 i.e., from the date on which I.A.No.2 was filed and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner-defendant to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation etc., (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC/SRL