- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 6437 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA URBAN HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.352, 3RD A CROSS, 2NDSTAGE, 3RDPHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, SRI. K.C.BETTASWAMY GOWDA, S/O LATE K.CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYAN MAYYAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, SRI. M.SURESH, SINCE DEAD BY HIR LR’S SMT. MANGALA GOWRAMMA W/O LATE M.SURESH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 079. 2. S.HARISH S/O LATE M.SURESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 079. 3. USHA D/O LATE M.SURESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 079. 4. M. NAGARAJ SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S SMT. VANAJA W/O LATE M.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 079. 5. N.KARTHIK S/O LATE M.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 079. 6. N.KAVYA D/O LATE M NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079 7. SRI M RAVI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. SUJATHA W/O LATE M RAVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079 8. R SUHAS GOWDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 S/O LATE M RAVI AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079 9. R JITHIN GOWDA W/O LATE M RAVI AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079 10. SRI M CHANNAKESHAVA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. SHANTH W/O LATE M CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079 11. C NAGARATHNA D/O LATE M CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079 12. JAYANTHI D/O LATE M CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 4TH MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079 13. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT YEARS S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA R/O NO.43, IV MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARADASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079. 14. SRI JATISH AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O NO.43, IV MAIN ROAD, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 AGRAHARADASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079. 15. SRI RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O NO.43, IV MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARADASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079. 16. SRI MAHESH AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O NO.43, IV MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARADASARAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 079. SRI. A.KRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S, SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O LATE SRI. A.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, R/AT NO.1227/68, 1STMAIN ROAD, MRCR EXTENSION, VIJAYA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 079. 18. SMT. BHARATHI D/O LATE SRI. A.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A NO.1227/68, 1STMAIN ROAD, MRCR EXTENSION, VIJAYA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 079. 19. SMT. SUMITHRA D/O LATE SRI.A.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NO.1227/68, 1STMAIN ROAD, MRCR EXTENSION, VIJAYA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 079. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 20. SRI. B.K.SRINIVASA S/O LATE SRI. A.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A NO.1227/68, 1STMAIN ROAD, MRCR EXTENSION, VIJAYA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH.K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R10 (A TO D) V/O DTD: 02.12.2020, R1 TO R9 ARE DELETED) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOSET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.20 MADE IN O.S.NO.4354/1999 DATED 07.03.2020, AS PER ANNX-N, PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU BY EXERCISING THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT KINDLY ALLOW THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY IN I.A.NO.20 AT O.S.NO.4354/1999, PASSED BY THE XXXVth ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking to challenge an order dated 07.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.4354/1999, The Karnataka Urban Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. Sri.Hanumantharayappa and others (hereinafter referred to as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, an application I.A.No.20 under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, has been dismissed. 2. None appears for the Respondent No.10 despite service. This Court has by its order dated 02.12.2020 deleted respondent Nos.1 to 9 from the array of parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises only an issue on the merits of the case. He further submits that the trial in the matter has already commenced. 4. When a Court is faced with an issue of whether or not an amendment is to be allowed, in a matter where trial has already commenced, the Court is required to examine two things. Firstly, whether that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial and secondly and subject to the first pre-condition, whether or not the amendment sought for is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy with the parties. 5. A review of the Impugned Order shows that the reason the Trial Court has dismissed the application giving a finding - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 that I.A.No.20 is barred by limitation and that the relief claimed under I.A.No.20 is barred by time. 6. It is no longer res integra that the Courts have to be liberal while allowing amendments to the pleadings especially when the main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation. The Supreme Court in Pankaja and another vs. Yellappa (dead) by LRs and Ors.1 has held that there is no rule that in every case where a relief may be barred by limitation, the amendment should not be allowed. The discretion would require evaluation of facts and circumstances in each case. Where there is an arguable question as to whether the amendment is barred by limitation, the Court must examine the same and thereafter give its finding. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract below: “12. So far as the court's jurisdiction to allow an amendment of pleadings is concerned, there can be no two opinions that the same is wide enough to permit amendments even in cases where there has been substantial delay in filing such amendment applications. This Court in numerous cases has held that the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation, therefore, if the facts of the case so permit, it is always open to the court to allow applications in spite of the delay and laches in moving amendment application. 1 (2004) 6 SCC 415 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 13. But the question for our consideration is whether in cases where the delay has extinguished the right of the party by virtue of expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in law, can the court in the exercise of its discretion take away the right accrued to another party by allowing such belated amendments. 14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straitjacket formula for allowing disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case. xx xx xx xx 16. This view of this Court has, since, been followed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board 2. Therefore, an application for amendment of the pleading should not be disallowed merely because it is opposed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation, on the contrary, application will have to be considered bearing in mind the discretion that is vested with the court in allowing or disallowing such amendment in the interest of justice. xx xx xx xx 19. We have already noted, hereinabove, that there is an arguable question whether the limitation applicable for seeking the relief of declaration on facts of this case falls under Entry 58 of the Limitation Act or under Entry 64 or Entry 65 of the Limitation act which question has to be decided in the trial, therefore, in our view, following the judgment of this Court in the case of 2 (2004) 3 SCC 392 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 Ragu Thilak D. John3 we set aside the impugned orders of the courts below, allow the amendment prayed for, direct the trial court to frame necessary issue in this regard and decide the said issue in accordance with law bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in the case of L.J.Leach and Co. Ltd.4 [Emphasis Supplied] 7. Indisputably, the trial has commenced in the matter. In these circumstances, Given that the trial has commenced, any amendment would be subject to fulfilling the conditions as set out in the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 which reads as under: “17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial” [Emphasis Supplied] 8. The perusal of the Impugned Order shows that there is no finding with respect to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The only finding given by the learned Trial Court is that the relief claimed under I.A.No.20 is barred by time and thus there 3 (2001) 2 SCC 472 4 AIR 1957 SC 357 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:421 WP No. 6437 of 2020 is no necessity of framing issues or recording of evidence without any reasoning therefore. At the time of examining an application for amendment to the pleadings, the Court is required to examine whether the amendment I required to prevent further litigation and whether such amendment is necessary for the ends of justice. No analysis has been given on why the amendment is barred by time. The Impugned Order thus cannot be sustained and is set aside. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA