- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3719 WP No. 36055 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.36055 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MS. K V KUMARI, D/O. SRI VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, UTTARADHIKAARI / ADMINISTRATOR OF SREE KOTILINGESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE, KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, K.G.F.TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUVA REDDY N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. K SHIVAPRASAD, S/O. LATE SRI KAMALASAMBAVA, (PRE-SANYASATHVA) AND SRI SRI N.KAMALASAMBAVA @ SAMBASHIVAMURTHY SWAMIJI, (AFTER SANYASATHVA), AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A. SAI SAI SHIVAPRASAD, MULTI-SPECIALITY ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC, NO.213, 7TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, 3RD PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE, NEAR KAMAKYA THEATRE SIGNAL, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. THE ASSISTANT ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (A.R.T.O.), K.G.F. DIVISION, K.G.F. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK N.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 VIDE ORDER DATED: 04.12.2025 NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3719 WP No. 36055 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 30.10.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KGF IN O.S.NO.270/2019 VIDE ANNX-L AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO.9 FILED BY UNDER ORDER-VI, RULE-17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN THE SAID SUIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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.270/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.9 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional prayer was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3719 WP No. 36055 of 2025 respondents-defendants, the matter was posted for further Chief examination of PW1, at which stage, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application seeking to incorporate additional prayer. The said application having been opposed by the respondents- defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application on the ground that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation and is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application on the ground that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation and was not necessary for adjudication of the dispute is contrary to the principles in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shivakumar - AIR 2015 SC 3364, wherein it has been held that whenever an amendment to a pleading is opposed on the ground of limitation, the proper course of action would be to allow the amendment by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3719 WP No. 36055 of 2025 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 and by leaving open the question/issue regarding limitation to be decided along with other issues in the suit. 5. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order is contrary to 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 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 respondents-defendants if the amendment was permitted especially when the respondents- 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3719 WP No. 36055 of 2025 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court refusing amendment has clearly occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and allow I.A.No.9 for amendment subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application for amendment and by leaving the question of limitation open to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.270/2019 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, KGF, is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.9 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff before the Trial Court is hereby allowed subject to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3719 WP No. 36055 of 2025 condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application for amendment i.e., 16.10.2025 and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents-defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation. v) The Trial Court shall consider the same by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both the parties and proceed further in accordance with law and dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. vi) 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. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 64