- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1508 WP No. 9316 of 2025 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. 9316 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. L.NAGARAJ, S/O. MR.LAKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVAGANGA CIRCLE, DABASPET, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NOORMOHAMMED., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. A MADESH S/O. N. ASHWATHA, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20/1, 13TH CROSS, I 'K' BLOCK, (KETHAMARANAHALLI), RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010 ALSO AT MUNICIPAL NO.23/25, 13TH CROSS, I BLOCK, 2ND DIVISION, 14TH WARD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. 2. MRS. MALATHI W/O. MADESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1508 WP No. 9316 of 2025 3. KUM. MADURYA M D/O MADESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT, NO.23/25, 13TH CROSS, I 'K' BLOCK, KETHAMARANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH NO. 08) BANGALORE PASSED ON THE APPLICATION UNDER IA NO.3/2023 UNDER ORDER SECTION 153 READ WITH ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH 151 OF CPC IN OS NO.3190/2014 DATED 16.01.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT AS PER ANNEXURE-D ACCORDING TO LAW AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS 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 arising out of a suit in O.S.No.3190/2014 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge (CCH No.8), Bangalore. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1508 WP No. 9316 of 2025 3. For the order proposed, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 4. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner/ plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.3190/2014 against the respondents for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the specific performance of a sale agreement and other reliefs in relation to suit schedule immovable property. After contest, the said suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff against the respondents/ defendants vide judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023. The said judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.3190/2014 has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the parties. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner intended to institute execution proceedings after realising that there were certain typographical, arithmetical and clerical errors that had crept into the said judgment and decree, the petitioner moved two applications viz., I.A.No.2/2023 under Section 152 CPC for correction of the decree and I.A.No.3/2023 under Section 153 read with Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to carry out necessary corrections in the plaint to bring it in consonance/ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1508 WP No. 9316 of 2025 conformity with the sale agreement which was upheld in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff by the Trial Court. By the impugned orders, the Trial Court proceeded to reject both I.A.No.2/2023 and I.A.No.3/2023, agreed by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that as stated supra, the respondents/ defendants did not contest or file objections to I.A.No.2/2023 or I.A.No.3/2023 despite having been notified in that regard by the Trial Court. In addition there to, a perusal of the applications I.A.No.2/2023 and I.A.No.3/2023 as well as the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.3190/2014 will clearly indicate that the petitioner merely wanted to bring the impugned judgment and decree in conformity/ consonance with the sale agreement and the other material on record and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondents if the applications filed by the petitioner were allowed as sought for by him. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting I.A.No.2/2023 and I.A.No.3/2023 filed by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1508 WP No. 9316 of 2025 petitioner has clearly occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. ORDER i. The petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge(CCH No.8), Bangalore in O.S.No.3190/2014 vide Annexure-E is hereby set aside. iii. I.A.No.2/2023 and I.A.No.3/2023 filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff are hereby allowed. iv. The Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint as sought for in I.A.No.3/2023, and consequently amend the decree as sought for by the petitioner/ plaintiff in I.A.No.2/2023 and issue amended decree immediately without any delay. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8