- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 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. 22065 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NINGARAJU S/O.MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.29, NEXT TO BEML LAYOUT, OPP. BSNL OFFICE, BEHIND THAPOVANA APARTMENT, LINGAGUDI KERE ROAD, SHRIRAM PURA 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570008 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S MADAN S/O.SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.155, JETTY STREET, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU-570010 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 ON IA NO.12 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU IN OS NO.476/2019 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.476/2019 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.12, whereby the said application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent/plaintiff initially instituted a suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. Subsequently after commencement of trial and during the course of cross examination of PW.1, the respondent/plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment to the prayer column of the plaint by incorporating the additional prayers for declaration, mandatory injunction etc., as well as corresponding pleadings in the plaint in this regard. The said application having been opposed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 petitioner, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the amendment application by holding as under: "ORDERS ON I.A.NO.12 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SEC.151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE This application is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by the plaintiff seeking for amendment of plaint as stated in the application. Plaintiff has sought amendment in prayer column as follows; SCHEDULE/PROPOSED AMENDMENT Amendment No 1. After Para No 5, to add another Para as Para No 5(a) as follows: It is submitted by the plaintiff that originally the entire property in earlier Sy. No. 56/2A belongs to the father of the plaintiff having purchased under registered sale deed to an extent of 0.34 guntas. After the said purchase, later on the said Sy. No, was renumbered as Sy No 56/3A and later on the same was referred as Sy No 56/3AB. Further, the father of the plaintiff has sold certain portion of the property purchased referred above to certain persons and one such site was sold in favor of L.Mahendranath and Smt Divya Jyothi to an extent of East to West 40ft and North to South 30ft. Thereafter, the said L.Mahendranath and Smt Divya Jyothi in turn sold the said property referred above to one Smt Latha. Further, the said Smt Latha sold the said property referred above to One Sri Rajesh.S.U. The defendant herein purchased the said property mentioned above in this para form Rajesh.S.U. It is further submitted that the property that is situated to the northern side of the property purchased by the defendant herein actually belongs to the father of the plaintiff herein who has the title of the same in his name being its owner. The said property situated in the northern - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 side of the property purchased by the defendant herein totally measures East to West 20ft and North to South 40ft, after the execution of the registered sale deed at the first instance to L.Mahendranath and thereafter stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff having been part of the total extent of 0.34 guntas of land purchased at the first instance. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the property of the defendant has an entrance from the eastern side and further, the property retained ie., situated towards the northern side of the defendant's property ends immediately after 40ft East to West and towards West the said property is bounded by property of Jamunabai /Topovana Apartment and this fact itself clearly establish that the northern side property to the defendant is not a road though it is mentioned in the sale deed. Thus the said property retained by the father of the plaintiff which is situated towards the northern side of the defendant's property is not at all road though it is mentioned, as the title of the same vested with the plaintiff's father and thus the defendant under any circumstances based on the boundary mentioned cannot claim the suit property to be a road at all as no title could be derived or claimed on the boundary mentioned. Amendment No 2: After Para No after Para No 5 (a) as Para No 5(b) as follows: It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff being the owner of the property which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint, with title over it, has executed a registered Gift Deed dated 04-04-2019 in favor of the plaintiff herein and has thus conveyed the plaint schedule property in favor of the plaintiff. In this regard, it relevant to mention that though the extent towards North to South is 20ft, for plaintiffs convenient purposes, an extent of 5ft on north and south side was left for plaintiff's usage under the said registered gift deed referred above and thus the total - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 extent including the space left for usage in total 40ft x 20ft absolutely belongs to the plaintiff and that except the plaintiff nobody has any right over the same. Further, as on the date of the execution of the registered gift deed referred above itself, the father of the plaintiff has constructed a pakka A.C. Sheet shed house in the plaint schedule property and thus now the plaintiff is in occupation of the same. Further the plaintiff has also obtained power supply connection to the said property situated towards the northern side of the defendant's property. The CHESCOM authorities have also provided meter box and R.R. No as RVL47599 to the plaint schedule property also and the plaintiff has paid the legal fees to the authorities. Infact, the defendant along with his family members have damages the electric meter box to a large extent and the plaintiff has objected for the same. Thus the plaintiff has acquired full right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property to the exclusion of others. In this regard, it is also relevant to mention that the wrong mentioning of the boundaries in the sale deed shall in no way create any right to the defendant nor to any other PERSONS when the father of the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which was duly conveyed to the plaintiff under o registered deed. It is further submitted that when things stood like this, now the defendant taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff and the pending litigation, has illegally and unlawfully portrayed and has extended his norther western side construction into the plaint schedule property towards the north west by extending constructions into the plaint schedule property beyond the measurement of the property purchased by him. Thus the said constructions so made by the defendant is virtually inside the plaint schedule property. The construction so made by the defendant is beyond the extent of property purchased by him ie., North to South 30ft towards the norther side of the defendant's property beyond the measurement - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 of land purchased by the defendant and thus the said constructions so made in highly illegal, unlawful and by encroaching the property of the plaintiff herein. Further, the defendant has recently taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff when the plaintiff was out of station has encroached and has put up the said illegal construction approximately to an extent of 2.5ft to 3ft inside the plaint schedule property. The defendant has no right or authority to put up the said illegal construction beyond the extent of the property purchased by him and the same is a highly illegal and unlawful construction and the same needs to be demolished by the defendant. The entire construction made by the defendant beyond the extent of the property purchased by him towards the northern side of defendant's property is illegal construction made by the defendant and the same is affecting the rights of the plaintiff as the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property situated towards the northern side. As the construction made by the defendant in the norther western side abating the plaint schedule property is illegal and beyond the extent of property of the defendant the same needs to be demolished by way of mandatory injunction. The portion encroached and illegal construction made by the defendant is mentioned as 'B' schedule in the plaint. Except the property sold to the vendor of the defendant with ingress and egress towards east, rest of the property absolutely belong to the father of the plaintiff and now the schedule property to the plaintiff. Amendment No 3: In the prayer column, after the prayer (a) to add another prayer as (a-1) follows: To declare that the construction made by the defendant beyond the extent of North to South 30ft towards north western side abutting towards the southern portion of the plaint schedule property - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 more fully described in 'B' Schedule is illegal and unlawful construction. Amendment No 4: In the prayer column, after the prayer (a-1) to add another prayer as (a-2) follows: For the relief of decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the illegal construction made in the northern portion towards the western side of the written statement property abutting the plaint schedule property beyond the extent of North to South 30ft ie., 'B' schedule and in the absence of the defendant demolishing the same, for demolishing the said illegal construction by the plaintiff at the cost of the defendant through court process. Amendment No: In the Schedule the present plaint schedule to be made as 'A' schedule and after that incorporate B' schedule property which is the encroached portion as follows: 'B' SCHEDULE Property / illegal and unlawful construction made to an extent of East to West 4ft and North to South 3ft towards the Norther Western side of property of the defendant, inside A schedule property, bounded on East by vacant space of plaintiff, West by Tapovana Apartment, North by plaint schedule property and South by property purchased by defendant. 2. In the affidavit annexed to the application, it is stated that the present suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and the suit property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and his father executed a registered gift deed in his favour and as such he acquired right, title, interest and possession over the same. It is further submitted that they have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 put up a pakka AC shed construction and have obtained power supply to the suit property. The defendant without having any right illegally and unlawfully interfering with the suit property and trying to encroach the same in the guise of claiming to be a road. As such the present suit was filed. Now the defendant has illegally and unlawfully put up construction in the suit schedule property by encroaching a portion of the same in the hind portion of his property even though the defendant only purchased property to an extent of East to West 40 ft and North to South 30 feet and the defendant has illegally put up construction beyond the extent of property towards northern southern side of his property. The illegal construction made by the defendant is inside the suit schedule property and now the defendant is utilizing the illegal construction along with the property purchased by him. As such the said construction needs to be declared as illegal and it has to be demolished. The extent of illegal construction made by the defendant by encroaching upon the suit property is separately shown in the schedule for proper adjudication of the matter. The proposed amendment is only elaboration of facts already narrated in the plaint in view of the subsequent changes as the defendant once again started meddling with the suit property after leading the evidence. The right of the plaintiff over the suit property is infringed by the defendant to an extent of encroached portion as mentioned in the proposed amendment and as such the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction. The said act happened recently and plaintiff is entitled to seek for additional facts and reliefs by way of amendment. All the above acts done by the defendant are subsequent events during the pendency of the suit. As such the subsequent event needs to be incorporated in the plaint for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute raised between the parties without leaving the scope for multiplicity of proceedings. The proposed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 amendment is very much required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute raised between the parties. Hence prayed to allow the application. 3. The defendant has filed his objections and contended that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The proposed amendment at para no.5[a] is nothing but repetition to an extent of half portion of the amendment and remaining portion are contradictory to the earlier plaint as such the contradictory averments and new case cannot be introduced by way of amendment. Further the proposed amendment at para no.5[b] is also repetition with respect to gift, deed and ownership of the plaint schedule property which is already mentioned in para no.5 and 6 of the plaint. Further the amendment regarding construction of pakka AC shed house and occupation of the same by the plaintiff is false and contradictory to the earlier plaint and further the plaintiff has subsequently created the meter box and RR number and tried to create electricity connection to the road as such the defendant has given objections to the Chescom requesting them not to provide electricity supply to the road and the Chescom has issued an endorsement dated 28.08.2023. The relief sought to be amended in the plaint is incorrect as earlier the suit was filed for injunction and now the plaintiff is trying to convert it into declaration and mandatory injunction and further the plaintiff is going to add new schedule as B schedule. The amendment sought in the application runs about 6 pages but earlier plaint consisted of 4 pages. Under law the amendment cannot extend the original plaint and it is very lengthy than original plaint and also the relief is different. As such the relief and cause of action is changed as the plaintiff is going to introduce electricity supply obtained by the Chescom illegally. The proposed amendment take away the contentions made in the written statement which was filed in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 year 2019. The plaintiff was aware of contentions taken in the written statement and the proposed amendment shown have been sought within 3 years from the date of knowledge. As per the directions and decision of apex court the amendment application has to be filed within 3 years from the date of filing of the written statement. On the said ground the amendment application is not maintainable. The defendant has already sought counter clam for the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff restraining him from interfering with the property of defendant as mentioned in the written statement. The proposed amendment is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not exercised due diligence and filed the application at the highly belated stage. Hence prayed to dismiss the application. 4. On the basis of rival contentions, the following points arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the applicant has made grounds to allow the application? 2. What order? 5. My answer to above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following: REASONS 6. Point No. 1: This suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has sought for proposed amendment to the plaint. Per contra, the defendant objected the amendment by filing his objections. 7. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the facts narrated in proposed amendment are subsequent - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 events and very much necessary to decide the real controversy involved in the suit and prayed to allow the application. Counsel for defendant argued that the proposed amendment is very lengthy and the relief and cause of action will be changed and plaintiff is trying to introduce new case at the belated stage which is not maintainable. He relied upon Karma Denka Bhutia V/s Sarki lamu wherein it has been held that "the prayer for amendment of plaint in respect of lis pendens is not necessary as the real question of controversy between the parties is with regard to title over the suit property." He also relied on Vijay Hathising Shah and others V/s Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi and others, wherein it has been held that "application for amendment filed at the stage when the trial was almost over and suit fixed for final arguments and suit could be decided even without amendment, trial Court rejecting the application for amendment is proper." He also relied No.200427/2023 [GM-CPC] Smt. Fatima V/s Zebra Aara and others, wherein it has been held that a new cause of action which has been introduced by the plaintiff by way of amendment which takes away the admission made in pleadings and cross examination is not permissible and trial Court dismissing the application for amendment is proper. Hence prayed to dismiss the application. 8. Under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, Courts discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleading can be exercised, firstly, where no injustice is done to other side and secondly, the amendment being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties also keeping in view the proviso under Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC. Even after commencement of the trial, the amendment can be permitted, if it is shown that in spite of due diligence, the applicant could not have raised the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 matter, earlier to the stage of commencement of the trial. 9. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and proposed amendment is further explanation of the facts already pleaded in the plaint and also in respect of subsequent events which occurred after filing of JUDOR suit which cannot be pleaded earlier by the even after exercise of due diligence. Further the defendant in his objections has admitted that part of the amendment is nothing but repetition of the earlier plaint. It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove the proposed amendment at the time of trial and the amendment sought in the application does not take away the right accrued to the other side and further in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for proper adjudication of matter, this court feels it proper to allow the application subject to payment of cost. It is the humble opinion of this Court that the ratios laid down in the above stated decisions are not applicable to the case on hand as the facts and circumstances of the present case is different from the facts and circumstances of those cases. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 10. Point No.2:- For the above said discussion to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: :ORDER: The application filed under Order VI Rule 17 R/w. Sec.151 of CPC is hereby allowed. Counsel for plaintiff is hereby directed to carry out amendment and to file amended plaint. Call on: 21.07.2025." - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the impugned order is in conformity/consonance with the principles governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 and Dinesh Goyal @ pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & ors reported in 2024 INSC 726 as well as the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammed Rafi Vs. Bande Nawaz in W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. It is also relevant to state that in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Ors reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C.Hanumanthappa v. H.B.Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and ors reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256, the proposed amendment would have to be directed not to relate back to the date of the suit, but to be reckoned/considered from the date of filing the amendment application, which was filed on 23.09.2024, by leaving open the question of limitation to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit along with other defences available to the petitioner defendant. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court permitting amendment cannot be said to suffered from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Chhabi Nath and Ors [(2015) 5 SCC 423], K.P.Natarajan and Ors. v. Muthalammal and Ors [AIR 2021 SC 3443] and Mohd. Ali v. V.Jaya [(2022) 10 SCC 477]. 6. In the result, the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) It is, however, made clear that the proposed amendment as permitted/allowed in the impugned order shall not relate back to the date of the suit which was filed in the year 2019, but the same shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing of the amendment application-I.A.No.12 by the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3663 WP No. 22065 of 2025 respondent/plaintiff, which was filed on 23.09.2024. iii) The question of limitation, maintainability, jurisdiction etc. as regards the suit as well as the amended plaint are kept open to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all defences including the defence of limitation, maintainability, jurisdiction etc., which shall be considered by the trial Court, which shall proceed further in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9