- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.28208/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. RAJU ELECTRONIC CENTRE A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. A. CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU S/O LATE A. ANJANEYA RAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEAS R/A NO.119, SADAR PATRAPPA ROAD BENGALURU-560002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. VISHWANATH SEVA BHANDAR A REGISTERED TRUST WITH THE REGISTERED ADDRESS AT NO.63-67 SADAR PATRAPPA ROAD REP. BY ITS PRESENT TRUSTEE. 1(a) SRI. SATISH KUMAR TUKREL S/O SRI. BALARAM AGE:MAJOR MULTI CHOICE VIDEO NO.69, 8TH MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560011. 1(b) SRI. ARJUNDAS R. GWALANI S/O SRI RAMDAD GWALANI Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 AGE:MAJOR C/O SATISHKUMAR TUKREL MULTI CHOICE VIDEO NO.69, 8TH MAIN ROAD II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560011. 1(c) SRI. LALCHAND NAGPAL S/O SRI. THOTHARAM NAGPAL AGED MAJOR C/O SATISHKUMAR TUKREL MULTI CHOICE VIDEO NO.69, 8TH MAIN ROAD II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560011. 1(d) SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR CHAWLA S/O KISHANDAS CHAWLA AGE:MAJOR C/O SATISHKUMAR TUKREL MULTI-CHOICE VIDEO NO.69, 8TH MAIN ROAD II BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560011. 2. SRI. M.S. SHERIEF S/O LATE LALEEMULLA SHAREIF AGE:MAJOR NO.26, COCKBURN ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 3. SMT VASANTHI GOPAL (SINCE DEAD) BY LR'S. 3(a) SRI. A. RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE ABBAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT. NO.20, IST FLOOR MUNISWAMAPPA LANE BEHIND DHARMARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE THIGALARAPET, BENGALURU-560002. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 3(b) SMT. B. SHAILAJA W/O SRI. P.N. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NO.3/3, 2ND CROSS P V N LANE, THIGALARAPET BENGALURU-560002. 3(c) SMT. B.R. REKHA W/O SRI. R.T.V. KRISHNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.20, 2ND FLOOR MUNISWAMAPPA LANE BEHIND DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE THIGALARAPET, BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.D. KRISHNAPPA, ADV., FOR R3 (a to c) V/O/DTD:03.11.2025 NOTICE TO R1 (a to d) ARE H/S R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - - THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2019 ON I.A.NO.XII (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALSO BOTH THE ORDERS DATED 28.06.2019 ON I.A.NO.16 AND 17 (ANNEXURE-B AND C RESPECTIVELY), IN O.S.NO.7362/2004, ON THE FILE OF XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-27);ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.12, 16 AND 17 AT ANNEXURE-L, P AND Q RESPECTIVELY FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.7362/2004, ON THE FILE OF XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-27) & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 CAV JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.05.2019 passed on I.A.No.12 and orders dated 28.06.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.16 in O.S.No.7362/2004 by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-27) (for short, 'the Trial Court'). 2. Sri.P.N.Rajeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 07.06.2000 and 10.04.2002. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to rectify the typographical error in the cause title of the plaint by correcting it as M/s. Raju Electro Centre instead of M/s.Raju Electronic Centre. The said application was erroneously rejected on the ground that the agreements of sale contain the same name. Hence, the petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.16 seeking to amend the prayer which also came to be rejected on the ground that the application is filed at the fag end of the proceedings. It is submitted that the Trial Court has incorrectly understood Section 26(4) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 Act') and held that the correction can be carried out if there is a mistake in the description of the property. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'PURAN RAM Vs. BHAGURAM AND ANOTHER1. He seeks to allow the writ petition. 3. Per contra, Sri., learned counsel for the respondents-defendants supports the impugned orders of the Trial Court and submits that the agreements in question are in the name of M/s.Raju Electronic Centre and based on such agreements, a suit is filed in the year 2004 and all the correspondences between the parties were with the same name and now, the plaintiff cannot seek to change the name by seeking amendment of the cause title. It is submitted that the amendment sought is an abuse of process and it would take away the right accrued in favour of the defendants and the same is filed to drag on the proceedings without any due diligence. It is further submitted that the respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.533/2017 against the petitioner herein for eviction and in the said suit also, the name of the defendant is required to be amended by him and he may be permitted to do 1 (2008) 4 SCC 102 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 so if the amendment is allowed in this petition. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection to amend the cause title of the plaint in O.S.No.533/2017 seeking to insert the name of the defendant as M/s.Raju Electro Centre. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 6. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.7362/2004 for the relief of specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 07.06.2000 and 10.04.2002. The defendants contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. The records indicate that the trial was concluded and at that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.12 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') seeking to amend the cause title of the memorandum of plaint by substituting the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 words 'M/s.Raju Electronic Centre' with the words 'M/s.Raju Electro Centre'. I.A.No.16 is filed under proviso to Section 26(4) of the Act, seeking to amend the plaint to incorporate the additional prayer. The prayer in the application reads as under: "(aa) to order for rectifying the Agreement of sale dated 10.04.2002 by correcting the name of purchaser as "M/s. Raju Electro Centre" instead of "M/s. Raju Electronic Centre", in the interest of justice and equity." 7. The said applications were opposed by the defendants by contending that the filing of the applications is abuse of process of the Court, filed at a belated stage without due diligence and the agreements in question are in the name of M/s.Raju Electronic Centre. It is contended that all the correspondences and the pleadings in the plaint refers M/s.Raju Electronic Centre and the applications filed at the fag end of the proceedings cannot be allowed. The Trial Court rejected both the applications which are under challenge. It would be useful to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PURAN RAM, referred supra which are as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 "12. After closely examining the provisions made under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, we do not find any difficulty to hold that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, it is permissible to amend a part of the description of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the agreement. Section 26 clearly says as to when a contract or other instrument can be rectified and provides that when through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, the agreement in writing does not express their real intention, it is open to the parties to apply for amendment of the instrument. It provides that when such a situation arises, then “26. (1)(a) either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified, or (b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue, claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified;” 13. A reading of these two conditions made under Section 26 of the Act would amply show that either party may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified or a party who has already filed a suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue may claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it cannot be doubted that the main issue in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale was relating to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 the agreement for sale in which a part of the description of the suit property was wrongly given by mutual mistake and therefore, needed to be amended. 14. Section 26, of course, says that it would be open to a party to institute a suit for correcting the description of the suit property, but the proviso to Section 26 clearly permits that where a party has not claimed any such relief in his pleading, the court shall at any stage of the proceeding allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claim. From a plain reading of the provisions under Section 26 of the Act, there is no reason why the prayer for amendment of the agreement to correct a part of the description of the suit property from Chak No. 3 SSM to Chak No. 3 SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM could not be granted. In our view, it is only a correction or rectification of a part of the description of the suit property, which cannot involve either the question of limitation or the change of nature of suit. In our view, the suit shall remain a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale and a separate independent suit is not needed to be filed when the proviso to Section 26 itself clearly permits either party to correct or rectify the description of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 agreement itself. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the agreement was entered into on 12- 4-1991 and the suit, admittedly, was filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, even if the amendment of plaint or agreement is allowed, that will relate back to the filing of the suit which was filed within the period of limitation. 15. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the rectification of the agreement cannot be permitted is concerned, we are of the view that Section 26(4) of the Act only says that no relief for rectification of instrument shall be granted unless it is specifically claimed. However, proviso to Section 26, as noted hereinearlier, makes it clear that when such relief has not been claimed specifically, the court shall at any stage of the proceeding allow such party to amend the pleading as may be thought fit and proper to include such claim. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that Section 26 would stand in the way of allowing the application for amendment of the agreement. The views expressed by us find support in a decision of the Madras High Court in Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Joolaganti Venkatasubba Rao Veerasamy & Co. [AIR 1921 Mad 664] wherein it was held that where in the course of a suit for damages for breach of contract, the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 plaintiff contends that if there is a clerical error in the document embodying the contract, it is not always necessary that a separate suit should have been brought for rectification of the document and it is open to the court in a proper case to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint and ask for the necessary rectification. 16. As noted hereinearlier, the learned counsel for the respondent contended before us that the appellant could not get specific performance of the contract for sale unless he sued for rectification of the agreement for sale. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent for the simple reason that in this case, by filing the application for amendment in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, the appellant had sought the rectification of the agreement also. It is sufficient to observe that it was not necessary for the appellant to file a separate suit for that purpose as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is open to the appellant to claim the relief of rectification of the instrument in the instant suit. The amendment, in our view, in the agreement was a formal one and there was no reason why such amendment could not be allowed." - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has held that allowing the application for amendment under Section 26 of the Act would avoid filing of separate suit and it is open for the plaintiff to claim the relief of rectification of the instrument and the amendment sought is a formal one and there was no reason to reject the same. 9. It is to be noticed that the applications seeking amendment of the cause title of the plaint as well as additional prayer is sought based on the fact that the name of the plaintiff-firm is M/s.Raju Electro Centre as is evident from the document at Annexure-M-the acknowledgement issued by the Registrar of Firms, Karnataka, wherein the plaintiff-firm is registered and the name of the firm is shown as M/s.Raju Electro Centre. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff's firm name is M/s.Raju Electro Centre and by mistake, the name is continued as M/s.Raju Electronic Centre in the pleadings as well as the subject agreements, hence, sought rectification by way of amendment. It is to be noticed that the petitioner's firm was an unregistered firm and based on such an unregistered firm, agreements came to be entered into between the parties and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 thereafter, the firm was registered in the year 2004. Hence, the amendment is sought as per the registered document. In my considered view, allowing such amendment though it is at the belated stage, would not cause any prejudice to the defendants nor change the nature of the suit. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting both the applications on hyper technical grounds. If the proposed amendment is allowed, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants are required to adduce any evidence and the stage of the suit also does not change. The proposed prayer in the plaint is required to be allowed and granting relief to such prayer is required to be considered by the Trial Court on merits. It is to be noticed that the proposed additional prayer is for rectification of the instrument in question and such amendment can be sought at any stage of the proceedings as provided in the proviso to Section 26(4) of the Act. Hence, for the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that he has no objection to amend the name of the defendant as M/s.Raju Electro Centre in O.S.No.533/2017 and in view of the said submission, the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23200 W.P. No.28208/2019 plaintiff in the said suit can seek the amendment and the Trial Court shall allow the said amendment. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) The impugned orders dated 27.05.2019 passed on I.A.No.12 and orders dated 28.06.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.16 in O.S.No.7362/2004 by the Trial Court are set aside. Consequently, the applications are allowed. (iii) The plaintiff shall file the amended plaint before the Trial Court. (iv) The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1