- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5159 WP No. 22436 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.22436 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH PARMAR, S/O LATE BABULAL PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PROP. M/S JAIN MEDICALS, OPP: GENERAL HOSPITAL, B. H. ROAD, TUMAKURU – 572 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. K. M. LEELAVATHI, W/O LATE G. S. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O 2ND MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, TUMAKURU – 572 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA N., ADVOCATE) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2022 MADE ON I.A. FILED UNDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S. NO.250/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC TUMAKURU (ANNEXURE E) BESIDE GRANTING RELIEFS OF OTHER NATURE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5159 WP No. 22436 of 2022 THIS WRIT 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 seeks to challenge an order dated 19.10.2022 on an application in O.S.No.250/2017, by the learned V Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. at Tumakuru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an application for amendment in the Written Statement filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected with costs of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the amendments were nothing but amplification of what has already been stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Written Statement. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand submits that, what the petitioner has set out in his amendment application has also been stated in paragraph 10 of the Written Statement. Thus, the amendment is not necessary. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5159 WP No. 22436 of 2022 4. A perusal of the Impugned Order shows that the ground that has been taken by the learned Trial Court for dismissing the application is that the petitioner/defendant has not shown any due diligence in conducting the proceedings, in terms of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The learned Trial Court has held that the application was filed at a belated stage to only drag the proceedings and no ground to allow the application has been made. 5. A perusal of the Written Statement shows that the petitioner/defendant, has, in fact, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Written Statement referred to the fact that he has put up construction on the first floor at his own cost. The relevant extract is below: “9. It is submitted that the relationship between G.S.Prasad and defendant that was of a such a nature that G.S.Prasad wanted to put up first floor and but because of his age and was nobody to look after he had requested the defendant to put up first floor construction at the cost of the defendant and he can use the first floor for his requirement and if he does not require it, G.S.Prasad will pay the construction cost. Till today the construction cost has not been paid to the defendant. 10. It is submitted that during the year 2008, the district administration of Tumkur along with Tumkur Municipality officials started widening of BH Road and had demolished - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5159 WP No. 22436 of 2022 the front portion of schedule property on the guise of saying that the construction is encroachment and had damaged the rolling shutter and building at that juncture the defendant had approached the G.S.Prasad who also came and inspected the shop and requested the defendant to repair the building and remove the front portion as directed by the municipal officials and the defendant did at his cost. The defendant has to install heavy girders and make it fit to do business. G.S.Prasad had said that amount would also be given at the time of vacating or selling the property. It is submitted that it was agreed that the rent has to be enhanced 5% every year and it is a permanent lease. It is submitted that there is no any written agreement between plaintiff and defendant. It is submitted that after the death of G.S.Prasad the plaintiff had approached this defendant and has took some signatures on some blank paper stating that it is required to be given to municipal for change of katha contending that the property is leased, the signature of lesee is also required. It is submitted that the lease is permanent lease, wherein the defendant has to pay enhanced rent of 5% every year.” [Emphasis Supplied] 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that since the evidence in this behalf has already been placed on record and that he would be further satisfied with a finding from this Court regarding his construction on the first floor along with the evidence that he has led in this behalf. 7. As stated above, since the application that was filed does not meet the requirement of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5159 WP No. 22436 of 2022 However, given the undisputed fact that the construction of the first floor has already been set out in the Written Statement, in the event that the petitioner/defendant has placed any evidence on record, the learned Trial Court will examine that and pass orders in accordance with law. 8. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. All pending applications stand closed. The cost imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be paid within two weeks from today. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA