- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3821 WP No. 1709 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1709 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. S. RADHA W/O H. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O MAKALI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. – 562 123 REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND HUSBAND SRI. H. RAVI S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O MAKALI VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGLORE URBAN DIST – 562 123 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. K. C. NAGARAJ S/O LATE CHIKKAVEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O KEMPALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DIST – 562 123 2. SRI. N. L. SATHISH KUMAR S/O N. R. LAKSHMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NO.117, 1ST CROSS, SUBHASNAGARA, OPP. TO KEB OFFICE, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE URBAN DIST – 562 123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PREREET JAIN B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3821 WP No. 1709 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.10.2025 ON IA NO. 3 IN OS NO. 240/2017 VIDE ANNX-F PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEARING IA NO. 3 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC VIDE ANNX-D. 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 plaintiff in O.S.No.240/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC in Nelamangala, whereby the application-I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating the additional prayer for declaration and corresponding declaration by way of adverse possession and corresponding pleadings in this regard was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3821 WP No. 1709 of 2026 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff having initially instituted a suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, the respondents-defendants are contesting the suit and at the stage of cross examination of PW1, the petitioner-plaintiff moved the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint as hereunder: INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit the plaintiff respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit her to amend the plaint as under in the interest of justice and equity. AMENDMENT SOUGHT FOR 1 After paragraph-9, to add the following paragraphs. (108). It is submitted that the possession of the plaintiff in the schedule property is adequate in continuity in public and adverse to the defendants and their predecessors in title and accordingly the plaintiff has perfected her title by way of an adverse possession and the right of the defendants and their predecessors in title is extinguished in view of the facts narrated above and thus the defendants have no manner of right, title or Interest over the schedule property nor they are in possession of the same. Even - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3821 WP No. 1709 of 2026 though the plaintiff has perfected her title by way of adverse possession, the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff illegally and forcibly on 1.1.2017 by denying the title of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration to declare that she has perfected her title over the schedule property by way of adverse possession. 2. In prayer column to add the following prayer after prayer (a) as under; (aa). Declare that the plaintiff being in unauthorized possession has perfected her title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and the right of the defendants and their predecessors in title is extinguished; and” 4. The said application having been opposed by the respondents, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application on the ground that a plea for declaration of title by way of adverse possession was not permissible without the petitioner-plaintiff admitting the right or title of the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the trial Court has proceeded to reject the amendment application solely on the ground that the proposed amendment cannot be sought for by the petitioner-plaintiff. The said finding recorded by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3821 WP No. 1709 of 2026 the trial Court is contrary to well settled principles of law governing amendment of pleadings by various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal v. K.K. Modi and others - AIR 2006 SC 1647, wherein it is held that the merits/demerits of the proposed amendment cannot be gone into while considering an application for amendment and all rival contentions would necessarily have to be decided after a full- fledged trial and not at the stage of consideration of an application for amendment. 6. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the trial Court has prejudged the entire issue and has come to the erroneous conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to plead adverse possession without first admitting the right and title of the respondent-defendant, which finding is clearly contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra as well as well settled principles governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and a co-ordinate Bench of this - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3821 WP No. 1709 of 2026 Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has fell in error in rejecting the amendment application warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dagadabai v. Abbas - (2017) 13 SCC 705, in order to contend that unless the petitioner admitted the title and right of the respondent, it is not open for him to plead adverse possession is concerned, the legality, validity, correctness etc., of the plea of adverse possession to be considered by the trial Court would arise only after permitting such amendment and without permitting amendment, the question of refusing amendment on the ground that such a plea is not permissible would tantamount to touching upon the merits of the proposed amendment which is impermissible in law. Under these circumstances, the said contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3821 WP No. 1709 of 2026 8. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the proposed amendment was highly belated and barred by limitation is concerned, in the light of the well settled principles of law governing principles of law as enunciated in Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shivakumar - AIR 2015 SC 3364, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and allow I.A.No.3 for amendment subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application for amendment and by leaving the question of imitation open to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 18.10.2025 in I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.240/2017 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, is hereby set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3821 WP No. 1709 of 2026 iii) I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff before the Trial Court is hereby allowed subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application for amendment i.e., 10.03.2020 and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents- defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation. v) The Trial Court shall consider the same by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both the parties and proceed further in accordance with law vi) 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 MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29