- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.35663 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C. PRABHAKARAN, S/O CHINNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. SMT. C. DEEPA, W/O C. PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.177, 4TH CROSS, MEI COLONY, LAGGERE BENGALURU – 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR COUSNEL FOR SRI. SUHAS S., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. S. N. RAJAPRABHU, S/O LATE NARASARAJU S.M., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.106, PADMASHREE PRESIDENCY 23RD MAIN, 17TH CROSS, SHAMANNA CIRCLE, MUNISWAMYRAJU ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.710/2019 DATED 06/11/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 defendants in O.S.No.710/2019 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.III whereby the said application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint by incorporating schedule property and additional pleadings and prayer was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners-defendants for permanent injunction and for other - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners- defendants, after framing of issues, at which stage, the respondent- plaintiff filed the instant application seeking to incorporate schedule property, additional pleadings and prayer. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners-defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will clearly indicate that the proposed amendment seeks to merely elaborate and amplify the existing pleadings and the same would not in any way change or alter the nature and character of the suit or its cause of action. Further, the proposed amendment is relevant and necessary to adjudicate upon the issues in controversy between the parties and as such, the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application by holding as under: “Counsel for the plaintiff is filed IA No.III U/o 6 Rule 17 R/w section 151 of CPC to permit the plaintiff to insert /add the schedule property and carry out the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 amendment as per the application in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In affidavit accompanying the application the plaintiff has stated that the defendant is denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also denied the existence of the suit schedule property. The defendant is denying the ownership of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. After filing of the written statement the plaintiff came to know that cloud has been raised over the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Further the additional facts throws more light over the issue in dispute. If the application is allowed it will avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. Hence prays to allow the application. 3. The Defendant No.1 and 2 have filed objections to the application. In the objections it is contended that the proposed amendment is not maintainable in law and facts and the plaintiff has sought for declaratory reliefs. Further this court has already framed issues and the case is posted for plaintiff evidence. As the court declined to give additional adjournments to lead evidence the plaintiff has come up with the present application. The plaintiff has come up with this application after lapse of 10 years from the date of filing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 the written statement. Further the present application leads to change of nature of the suit which is not admissible in law. Hence prays to reject the application. 4. Heard and perused the materials on record. 5. Now the point that arises for consideration are:- 1. Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties? 2. What order? 6. My answers to the above points are as follows :- Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following; REASONS 7. Point No.1 :- The plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Now the plaintiff has filed present application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint to insert /add the paras and to amend the prayer. 8. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC reads as under, ‘‘Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 9. On perusal of the available record it reveals that, after framing of issues the plaintiff has come up with the present application. Plaintiff has stated in the affidavit that, the defendant is denying his title over the suit schedule property and also denying the ownership over the suit schedule property. Further as the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property the plaintiff has filed present application seeking for amendment. 10. The defendant No.1 and 2 have filed objection and submitted that the application is bad in law and not maintainable according to provisions of law. The proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit. The plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration which changes the nature of the suit. Hence prays to reject the application. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 11. On perusal of the proposed amendment it revels that, plaintiff is intending to add additional paras as well as additional prayer to seek the relief of declaration and to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also to declare that the sale deed dated 09.11.2012 is not binding over him. It is well settled principle that the amendment of pleadings having regard to order 6 rule 17 of CPC itself is permissible at any stage of the suit and the court may at any stage of proceedings, allowed on such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trail has commenced. In this suit, the trail has not commenced yet. Further, amendment to be allowed, where no legal right has accrued and no prejudice is caused to other party. Moreover, the proposed amendment which does not introduced any new facts, seeks to introduce only additional approach to facts already pleaded. Therefore, the proposed amendment is permissible under law. Mis description or defective description of plaintiff or party must be allowed to be amended. Therefore the amendment sought by the plaintiff is necessary for the fair adjudication as well as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. If it is allowed no harm will be caused to the defendants. The burden is on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 the plaintiff to prove his pleadings failing which no relief can be passed. It is settled that, an inordinate delay in filling application by itself is not a ground to refused amendment. Therefore, the contention taken by the defendant No.1 and 2 is not maintainable. Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff is deserved to be allowed. Accordingly this court is answered point No.1 is Affirmative. 12. Point No.2: In view above findings to Point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following; O R D E R I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiff U/o 6 Rule 17 R/w section 151 of CPC is hereby Allowed on cost of Rs.500/. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint and furnish the amended plaint and fresh valuation slip.” 5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has considered and appreciated the rival contentions including the proposed amendment and has arrived at the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment was necessary and essential for the purpose of elucidating the issues controversy between the parties. The Trial - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 Court has held that since the petitioners-defendants would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the petitioners- defendants if the proposed amendment was allowed as sought for by the respondent-plaintiff. It is also pertinent to note that since the petitioners have raised defence of limitation, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu & another – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C. Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B. Shivakumar – (2016) 1 SCC 332, the proposed amendment would necessarily have to be allowed by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from the date of the amendment application filed on 19.06.2023. 6. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing the amendment prior to commencement of trial is in consonance and conformity with the principles governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. At any rate, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioners-defendants if the amendment was permitted especially when the petitioners-defendants would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all defences including the defence of limitation, which is to be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law. 7. Under these circumstances and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing application – I.A.No.3 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423 case. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4716 WP No. 35663 of 2024 (ii) It is made clear that the proposed amendment as allowed by the Trial Court shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from 19.06.2023 i.e., from the date on which I.A.No.3 was filed. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation. (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. (v) It is needless to state that parties at liberty to file I.As. in the suit which shall be considered and disposed of by the Trial Court. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78