HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.17571 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI H.R. BHASKAR S/O. H. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.29, RAMSUNAND 8TH MAIN, JARAKBANDEKAVAL VAISHNAVI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI J. NIXON S/O. JAYANATHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.56, 5TH CROSS 8TH MAIN, SBM COLONY BRINDAVANANAGARA MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054. 2. SRI M.C. VENKATESH MURTHY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O. LATE B. CHINNAPPA RESIDING AT NO.24, DURGA LAYOUT HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 2 - VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-97. 3. SMT. ANNAPURANADAYAL W/O. K. DEENA DAYAL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.39, 5TH TEMPLE STREET 5TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.08.2022, THE ANNEXURES-F PASSED IN O.S.NO.3343/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.NO.64) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.1 AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER SIMILAR RELIEFS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 3 - ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 04.08.2022 in O.S.No.3343/2012 passed by the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the impugned order, an application filed by defendant No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of his written statement was dismissed by the Trial Court with a finding that the petitioner has failed to show that due diligence was exercised prior to filing the amendment application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity and that he had already set out in his application that he had exercised due diligence. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, contends that the Impugned Order has been passed in accordance with law. Since the petitioner was unable to show any due diligence in terms of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the application was dismissed by the Learned Trial Court. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 4 - 4. The undisputed facts are that a suit was filed in the year 2012. Thereafter, the plaint was amended and pursuant to which, the additional written statement was filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 on 12.01.2018. The evidence in this matter commenced on 20.03.2021 and after the cross examination of PW.1 was completed, an application was filed on 07.04.2022 by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking amendments. 5. The Learned Trial Court has examined the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking an amendment and found that there is no averment about the exercise of due diligence. In addition, the learned Trial Court has found that there is no pleading on how the amendment is necessary to determine the real question in controversy and that the petitioner/defendant No.1 has only filed the said application to protract the litigation. Thus, the application was dismissed. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is set out below: "11. The defendant No.1 has not explained that despite due diligence he did not have knowledge of the facts now sought to be introduced in the written statement by way of amendment. The reason assigned by the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 5 - defendant No.1 that he realised certain true facts are not included in the written statement which is necessary for further cross examination. It is material note that there is no whisper by the defendant No.1 about the reasons for not filing the application at an earliest point of time. The grounds made out by the defendant No.1 does no falls within the preview of order 6 rule 17 of CPC. Absolutely no grounds made out by the defendant No.1 either in the application or in the affidavit with regard to the diligence in filing the amendment application. Even nothing has been pointed out that the alleged amendment is necessary to determine the real question in controversy. On facts the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for defendant No.1 are standing on different footing and not applicable to the present facts of the case. Under these circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the application filed by the defendant No.1 is devoid of merit. It appears that the defendant No.1 filed present application only to protract the proceedings. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative." [Emphasis Supplied] 6. It is settled law that ordinarily the Courts are liberal while granting amendments where the trial in the matter has not commenced, and where the amendments are requisite to determine the issue involved. However, where the trial has commenced, in addition to showing that the amendments are HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 6 - necessary for adjudicating the real controversy in issue, the party also has to show that due diligence was exercised under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC 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] 7. An examination of the application and affidavit in support of the application for amendment filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has sought to add several paragraphs to the written statement and has also set out new measurements and new boundaries. The reasons for the amendment are set out in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application wherein it is stated by the petitioner/defendant No.1 that the plaintiff has referred to various past events and documents and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 7 - it took some time to trace the same. Hence, it was difficult to give instructions to lead cross-examination and it was realised that certain facts are not included in the written statement. 8. In addition, in the said affidavit, the petitioner/defendant No.1 other than stating in paragraph 4 that he could not adduce these facts despite due diligence does not in fact set out any grounds as to why these details could not be produced earlier. The relevant extract is reproduced below : "2. I submit that the plaintiff has come up with the above suit seeking for Declaration and other alleged reliefs against the defendants on untenable and concocted grounds. I submit that the plaintiff has referred to various past events and documents which required us to collect details and trace out the same by searching old documents and connected papers from the survey department and the same took considerable time hence, it was difficult to give instructions to lead further cross examination of P.W.1 in the above suit. At this stage when I was discussing with my counsel for leading further cross examination then we realised that certain true facts are not included in the additional written statement which is necessary to lead for further cross examination on the said aspects. xx xx xx HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 8 - 4. I submit that by allowing the accompanying application, the character of the main suit already brought in will not change and it will not introduce any new case or cause of action and it will not take away any alleged advantages that might have been accrued in favour of the defendants and the proposed amendment flows from the same set of facts and circumstances. I submit that inspite of due diligence the proposed amendment could not be inserted earlier and the same is not wanton or deliberate. As such, the amendment sought for goes to the very root of the suit and requires consideration by this honourable court for the effective and final disposal by this honourable court, hence it is just and necessary that this honourable court be pleased to allow the accompanying application as prayed for." [Emphasis Supplied] 9. As stated above, the suit has been pending since the year 2012 and the petitioner filed his additional written statement way back in the year 2018. A perusal of the affidavit annexed with the application shows that the petitioner has not set out any reasons for not filing the application earlier or how the petitioner has in fact exercised due diligence in terms of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. No reason has been set forth before this Court either. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6426 WP No. 17571 of 2022 - 9 - 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE Hkh/RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA