- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34993 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA SON OF LATE POOJA GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.358, 1ST CROSS, NARASIMHASWAMI LAYOUT, LAGGERE, BANGALORE - 560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A. C. RAVI SON OF CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 20, 4TH CROSS, 33RD MAIN, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, B.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 15.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XTH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S.NO. 9508/2014 ANNX-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.9508/2014 is directed against the impugned order dated 15.11.2024, whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff, who in the first instance, instituted a suit for permanent/bare injunction simpliciter and subsequently, got the plaint amended by incorporating the prayer for declaration and possession and an amended plaint was filed by him. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff moved the instant application interalia contending that though the respondent-plaintiff intended to get the plaint amended only in relation to the relief of declaration, due to oversight and inadvertence, the respondent had sought for recovery of possession, which they did not intend to seek while filing the application for amendment. Under these circumstances, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 the respondent-plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint which came to be allowed by the trial Court by holding as under; “ ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC This application is filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC seeking permission to delete the prayer (B) in the prayer column of the plaint, as sought in this I.A. In the annexed affidavit, the plaintiff has submitted that, he has purchased the suit schedule property from Krishna and Govinda Reddy under an absolute sale deed dated 10.04.2014 and he was also put in possession of the suit schedule property on the very same day. Subsequently, he has got khatha of the suit schedule property transferred to his name from the BBMP and he has also paid taxes to the BBMP and also got the electrical connection transferred to his name in the records of BESCOM. The defendant has no manner of right, title and interest in the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff. All the documents are standing in his name which clearly shows his title and possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that, since the defendant interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, he was constrained to file the suit initially for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 schedule property. Pursuant to service of summons on the defendant, the defendant has appeared before this Court and has filed written statement by denying his title over the suit schedule property and further has alleged that he is the owner of the suit schedule property that he has purchased the property bearing No.6, Laggere village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk by registered General Power of Attorney dated 03.02.2001 executed by Channappa, son of Nanjaiah and further alleged that the said Channappa has executed a sale deed dated 16.05.2014 in his favour and therefore he is the absolute owner of the said property. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff had filed a suit for bare injunction when the defendant denied plaintiff's title in his written statement and thereafter he had filed application under order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. on 02.09.2015 seeking the relief of declaration and also averments were made in the said application only in so far as the relief of declaration in concerned and there were no averments regarding relief of possession and the said relief of possession was not intended to be sought for and by inadvertent oversight and mistake the relief of possession was copied and pasted by the stenographer from another suit. The plaintiff never intended to seek the relief of possession and therefore he had not made any averments in the amendment application regarding possession. It was inadvertent mistake by oversight by the stenographer who 'copied' and 'pasted' the prayer column from another file. The said mistake was unnoticed and when the defendant's advocate raised it in his arguments, the said mistake was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 noticed and as such it is a genuine mistake caused by oversight and it is caused by 'copy' and 'paste' syndrome and the defendant also filed objection. The defendant will not be put to any loss, injury or hardship if the said prayer is deleted whereas a great loss, injury CIVIL Aand hardship would be caused to him if the application is not towed Hence, the application may be allowed. The defendant filed statement of objection contending that, the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is further contended that, the plaintiffs initially has field the suit against the defendant for the relief of declaration in respect of the suit schedule property. How by way of amendment, the plaintiffs wants to delete prayer for declaration after the lapse of 10 years from the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff filed this amendment application after lapse of 10 years. The intention behind the proposed application are nothing but to drag the proceedings of the above case and to keep the lis alive. At the time of filing of written statement itself, these defendants have categorically denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Inspite of the same, the plaintiffs has not chooses to seek the amendment immediately after filing of the written statement. The plaintiff kept quiet till the trial is completed and when the matter is posted for arguments on merits, the plaintiff has come with this present application. The reference made in the proposed amendment are without basis and stands bald in nature, which cannot be acceptable in considering the application for amendment filed after lapse of 10 years from the date of filing of the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 It is further contended that, the case stands posted for arguments on merits. If the amendment is allowed it changes the nature of the suit and the cause of action. It amounts to rehearing of the suit from the beginning like filing of additional written statement, framing of additional issue and adducing fresh evidence, which would embroil these defendants to years of unwarranted litigation for the latches on the part of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs has wasted 10 years of judicial time of the Court which amounts to abuse process of law and also the valuable time of these defendants which cannot be compensated by any other modes and prayed to dismiss the application. Heard the arguments on both the sides. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are as under: 1. Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to allow this L.A.? 2. What order? My answer to the above points are as follows: Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following: REASONS POINT No.1: I have gone through the contents of the application and objection statement. The plaintiff filed the present application and sought amended to delete the prayer (B). The contention of the plaintiff is that, in the affidavit annexed along with the application, on 01.10.2018 they have not mentioned that they are seeking possession and in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 application due to cut and paste in the computers has happened and it is a mistake and due to inadvertent mistake it has happened and it is not affected by limitation. The defendant counsel submitted that, the plaintiff filed this application after arguments of both the counsels. The defendant had cross-examined on this point and also taken contention about it. Now this plaintiff cannot file the present application to delete the prayer as this prayer was added after allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of C.P.C. and now they cannot file the present application. It is pertinent to note that, as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.2233/2016 dated 06.08.2018 and allowed to seek for declaration of his title and amendment carried out. At present the plaintiff sought to delete prayer 'B' At this juncture this Court opines to glance at Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and would like to drop it here. It reads as follows: "Order 23-Withdrawal And Adjustment Of Suits 1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim. At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim: Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in rules 1 to 14 of Order 23 extend, neither the suit - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court." While carefully perusing Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. it clearly states that at any time after institution o the suit. It means the plaintiff can file the present application at any time after institution of the suit. Thus, there is no restriction to file the present prayer. Further it is stated that, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim. It means he can abandon a part of his prayer. Here the present plaintiff has filed the application to abandon his part of ANIS plaint prayer. Thus, over all it is clear that the plaintiff can at any time may abandon his part of claim or prayer in the plaint. I rely upon the citation rendered by our Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Abdul Rehman and another - Vs - Mohammed Ruldu and others reported in 2012 (11) SCC 341 wherein it has held that, "A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or.6 C.P.C. R.17 proviso (as amended by Amendment Act 22 of 2002) and Or.7 Rr. 1 and 7- object and purpose of Or.6 R. 17 proviso Amendment of plaint after commencement of trial When permissible Matters to be considered Relief claimed by way of amendment if time barred. Held, if such amendment application is made after commencement of trial court has to arrive at a conclusion that inspite of due diligence, plaintiff could not have raised matter before commencement of trial - Or. 6 R. 17 proviso to some extent curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 at any stage Object of Or.6 R. 17 that Courts should try merits of case that comes before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side Main purpose of allowing amendment is to minimize litigation and plea that relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in light of facts and circumstances of each case. B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. 6 proviso (as amended by C.P.C. Amendment Act 22 of 2002) and Or.7 R. 7-Amendment of plaint after commencement of trial - When permissible - Making clear and explicit what was already already implicit in plaint - Nature of suit not changed - Held, all amendments which are necessary for purpose of determining real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change basic nature of suit - On facts, challenge to voidness of sale deeds was implicit in factual matrix set out in unamended plaint and, therefore, relief of cancellation of sale deeds as sought by amendment does not change nature of suit as alleged - Furthermore, proposed amendment to include a relief of declaration of title, in addition to permanent injunction which was claimed in unamended plaint, is to protect plaintiffs interest and not to change basic nature of suit as alleged - Thus, contrary view expressed by trial court and High Court cannot be sustained Amendments permitted - Specific Relief Act, 1963-55.38, 31, 34 and 5 Suit for possession of land - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 allegedly sold illegally Formal reliefs to be Transfer of Property Act, 1882, claimed 5.54." I rely upon the ratio rendered in K.V.Sathyamurthy and others Vs K.G.Srinivas where his lordships have held that allowing amendment of trial amendment can be allowed subject to condition that, amendment is required for effective adjudication the dispute in question and does not take away the vested or accrued right of the opposite party or such claim is not barred by law of limitation. The principles laid down in the said decisions are applicable to the present fact and circumstances of the case. The amendment sought by the plaintiff is not time bar as limitation of time is not attracted because plaintiff sought to delete the prayer No.B and not to add any prayer. While perusing the earlier affidavit annexed with the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. he has not said anything about prayer No. B. It is pertinent to note that, delay is seeking the deletion of his prayer 'B' is not a ground to dismiss the application as the aim of the Court is to see substantial justice is rendered even if some inconvenience is caused. Hence the amendment sought by the plaintiff can be allowed in order to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to prove his case and to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties to be allowed to upheld the natural justice and audi alteram partem, and for the delay may be compensated by imposing reasonable cost on the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the AFFIRMATIVE. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on the above points, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.1000/-.” 4. A perusal of the impugned order will clearly ndicate that the trial court was fully justified in passing the impugned order, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor the same said to have occasioned any prejudice or failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477, especially when the petitioner-defendant would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. It is also pertinent to note that mere withdrawal of the relief of possession sought for by the plaintiff by virtue of the amendment, cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner, who would be entitled to contest the plaint on merits on all aspects of the matter. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2714 WP No. 34993 of 2024 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner-defendant to file additional written statement and the trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.