- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2086 WP No. 33722 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33722 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MRS. ALKA KAPOOR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O SRI. KEWAL KAPOOR, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.A-181, SOBHA MAGNOLIA APARTMENT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, OPP.JAL BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMADAS B. PADIYAR AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVADAS PADIYAR, 2. SMT. LATA PADIYAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O RAMADAS PADIYAR, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.15, GLADWYNN DRIVE, READING PENNSYLVANIA 19660 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L. M. PANDURANGASWAMY FOR SRI. ANIL BABU C., ADVOCATES) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNX-A THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 8 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO. 352/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2086 WP No. 33722 of 2025 JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SAID IA NO. 8 IN OS NO. 352/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.352/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the application- I.A.No.8 filed by the respondents-defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement by incorporating/inserting Para 13 (a) to 13(e), para 14 (a) and (b) and para 17(a) to (d) including the Counter claim was allowed by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit against the respondents- defendants for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the respondents-defendants, who have filed their written statement. After commencement of evidence of PW1, the respondents filed an application seeking to amend the written - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2086 WP No. 33722 of 2025 statement by not only incorporating additional pleadings but also a counter claim for recovery of damages from the plaintiff and for other reliefs. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. A perusal of the proposed amendment sought for in IA No.8 will indicate that by way of proposed para 13(a) of the proposed amendment, the defendants seek to put forth the following pleadings: 13(a): the defendants submits that, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the defendants have suffered huge loss to the sum of Rs.36,00,000/- due to the criminal act and breach of the terms and conditions of the sale agreement dt:18-1-2020. The plaintiff only with an dishonest and evil intention to cheat, to defraud, to gain illegally induced the defendants so that to execute the sale agreement in respect of the schedule property by paying just Rs.1,00,000/- towards the advance sale consideration. The plaintiff evil intention just by paying Rs.1,00,000/- as advance amount, intends to drag the issue of sale procedure for almost 3 years only with dishonest intention to snatch the property from the hands of the old aged defendants for lesser sale consideration of Rs.1,38,00,000/- though knowing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2086 WP No. 33722 of 2025 that the market value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit in the year 2023 was Rs.2,37,12,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs Twelve Thousand Only) i.e., Rs.13,000/- per square feet. 4. 4. These aforesaid proposed amendment by way of para 13(a) is clearly contrary to the pleadings already put forth by the respondents in para 4 of the original written statement which reads as under: “ 4. It is also true that in order to meet financial and domestic commitment, the defendants decided to sell the schedule property and accordingly executed an Agreement of Sale dated 18.01.2020 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the schedule property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,38,00,000/- and also received Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance through cheque bearing No. 07953 dated 13.01.2020 drawn on State Bank of India, HSR Layout Branch , Bangalore. It is also true that the time stipulated for completion of the sale transaction is three months from the date of agreement and defendant have agreed to furnish relevant documents as required by the plaintiff for her verification as contended in Para No. 5 of the plaint. However, it is false that defendants did not come forward and not provided documents and protracting the same by one reason or the other. The defendants have furnished copy of their Sale Deed, Khatha Certificate and tax paid to plaintiff through her person.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2086 WP No. 33722 of 2025 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court committed an error in allowing I.A.No.8 by permitting incorporation/insertion of para 13(a) to the written statement and the said finding deserves to be set aside. However, the impugned order insofar as it relates to permitting incorporation/insertion of para 13 (b) to (e) will clearly indicate that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and the said proposed amendment cannot be said to change or alter the nature or character of the suit and as such, the trial Court is fully justified in permitting amendment as sought for by incorporating/inserting para 13 (b) to (e) and the finding of the trial Court in this regard deserves to be confirmed. 6. Insofar as the impugned order permitting insertion/incorporation of para 14 (a) and (b) and 17(a) to (c) as well as the counter claim is concerned, since the evidence in the suit had already commenced, having regard to the fact that the matter was posted for evidence of the defendants, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra vs Wing Cdr Surendra Agnihotri - 2020 (2) SCC 394, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2086 WP No. 33722 of 2025 wherein it is held that the upper/outer limit for seeking a counter claim would be only upto settlement of issues and not thereafter, the impugned order permitting amendment by incorporating inserting para 14 (a) and (b) and 17(a) to (c) and the Counter Claim at 17(d) deserves to be set aside. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby partly allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 31.10.2025 in O.S.No.352/2023 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to permitting amendment of the written statement by incorporating/inserting para 13 (b) to (e) is hereby confirmed. iii) The impugned order insofar as it relates to permitting incorporating/inserting para 13(a), 14(a) and (b), 17(a) to (c) and the counter claim 17(d) is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2086 WP No. 33722 of 2025 iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to file a separate suit subject to all just exceptions in relation to the amendment and counter claim set aside by this order. v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59