- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 35676 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PADMA PRIYA RUPESH W/O. SRI RUPESH ANAND AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.161/31, 10TH 'B' MAIN ROAD 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR ENGALURU-560 011. REP BY SRI RUPESH ANAND, G.P.A. HOLDER (HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER) S/O. SRI N. ANANDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.161/31, 10TH 'B' MAIN ROAD 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR ENGALURU-560 011. .…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE SUBBAMMA AND LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, PIN-560064. 2. SRI. PATALAPPA S/O. SMT. SUBBAMMA AND LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS PIN-560064. 3. SRI. JAYARAM S/O. SMT. SUBBAMMA AND LATE MUNIYAPPA Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS PIN-560064. 4. SRI. KEMPANNA S/O. SMT.SUBBAMMA AND LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS PIN-560064. 5. SRI. CHANNARAYAPPA S/O. SMT. SUBBAMMA AND LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS PIN-560064. 6. SRI. MALINI S/O. SMT. SUBBAMMA AND LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 7. SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O. SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7 ARE R/AT NO.127/1 ANANTHAPURA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064. 8. SRI VENKATAPPA S/O. LATE KEMPANNA R/O. 125, ANANTHAPURA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064. AND ALSO R/AT GOLLUCHINNAPPANAHALLI GANGAREKALUVE POST CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK-562101. 9. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE KEMPANNA R/O.126, ANANTHAPURA VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064. 10. SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR @SAMPANGI S/O. SRI VENKATAPPA R/O.126, ANANTHAPURA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064 AND ALSO RESIDING AT GOLLUCHINNAPPANAHALLI GANGAREKALUVE POST CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK-562101. 11. TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., A CO-OPERATIVE BANK REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.H. ROAD, TUMKUR AND HAVING ITS BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BRANCH REP BY ITS MANAGER AT NO.322, 8TH MAIN ROAD 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 079. 12. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDL.) YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH ADITHYA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R6; SMT. HEMALATHA V, AGA FOR R12) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND IN O.S.NO.839/2006 DATED 22.08.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS APPLICATION FILED BY THE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 IN O.S.NO.839/2006 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant No.6 in O.S.839/2006 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is directed against the impugned order dated 22.08.2025, whereby the application filed by the LRs of the plaintiff No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in the first instance, the plaintiff instituted a suit against the petitioner, defendant No.6 and other defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule and immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence, at which stage, the LRs of plaintiff No.1 filed the instant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings and prayers in relation to subsequent events that had occurred/ transpired during the pendency of the suit. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under: "ORDER ON APPLICATION The LR's of plaintiff No.1 has filed application Under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w section 151 of CPC, seeking permission to amend the plaint as sought in the application. 2. The reasons ventilated by the plaintiff in the affidavit annexed to the application is that the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.6 came on record stating that he has got purchased suit properties through auction dated 29.05.2014 during pendency of suit. Later he entered to pay Rs.1,25,00,000-00 to 2nd plaintiff Rs.50,00,000-00 to plaintiff No.1 in respect of A and B schedule properties. It is further submitted that since defendant No.3 raised objections and defendant No.6 failed to pay compromise petition admitted amount of Rs.50,00,000-00 to plaintiff No.1 it was dismissed. The amendment is before trail, it does not change nature of suit, nor cause of action, as it is in continuation of new - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 events. The amendment is not time barred and belated as it is continuation of new events. Defendant No.6 subsequent to dismiss of compromise petition on 04.01.2022 filed injunction suit and later withdraw. Now plaintiffs made to file injunction suit in O.S.No.395/2022 and obtained injunction order against the defendant No.6. Hence prays to allow the application. 3. Per contra, the defendant has filed the objection, in the objection it is contended that, the application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The application filed by the LR's of the plaintiff No.1 seeking for amendment to the plaint and also insertion of certain known facts after lapse of 9 1/2 years is not at all permissible/ maintainable either in law or in facts. Further, the said amendment is hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence prays to reject the application. 4. Heard, perused materials on record. 5. After going through the application with affidavit points arise for my consideration are: 1. Whether the LR's of plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to amend the plaint? 2. What order? 6. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Affirmative. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 Point No.2: As per the final order for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1: The present suit is filed by the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants seeking declaration and injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule properties. 8. Through this application, the plaintiff has sought to amend the plaint as sought, to insert para 19(A)" After para 19, to insert prayer 1(a) before (a). 9. As per Section 101 to 103 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his pleadings with proof on documentary and oral evidence. It is settled principle of law that, at the time of considering the amendment application the court must not go into the merits of the case. No prejudice will be caused to the defendants, if this application is allowed. On the other hand, if this application is rejected, the plaintiff is deceived with an opportunity to put forth their case. The plaintiff has sought to amend the plaint as sought, to insert para 19(A)" After para 19, to insert prayer 1(a) before (a). If the amendment application is not allowed definitely the same will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it is just and necessary to allow the application. In the touchstone of the reasons stated above, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 10. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 ORDER The application filed by the LR's of plaintiff Under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Sec. 151 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.500/-. For amended plaint and amendment and fresh valuation-slip." 4. A perusal of the material on record, the proposed amendment and the impugned order would clearly indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record and has recorded a correct finding that the proposed amendment relate to subsequent events that had transpired during the pendency of the suit and as such the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court permitting amendment cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 5. It is however relevant to state that since the petitioner contends that the proposed amendment is barred by law and limitation, the impugned order deserves to be modified by directing - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be considered/ vacant from the date of filing the application on 05.10.2023 and leaving open all contentions including contentions regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation to be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam & another v/s. Chhabi Nath & others1, K.P.Nataranjan v/s. Muthalammal2 and Mohamed Ali v/s. V.Jaya & others3, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court to the extent stated above in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ORDER i. In the result petition is hereby disposed of. ii. Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 in O.S.839/2006 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby modified. 1 (2015) 5 SCC 423 (also cited as 2015 5 SCC 426) 2 AIR 2021 SC 3443 3 (2022) 10 SCC 477 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 iii. The amendment application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed/ permitted subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back in the light of the judgment in the cases of Sampath Kumar V/s. Ayyakannu and ors.4 and L.C.Hanumanthappa V/s. H.B.Shivakumar5 iv. The impugned amendment application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed/ permitted subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be considered/ vacant from the date of filing the application on 05.10.2023 and leaving open all contentions including contentions regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation to be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law. v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement and take up all contentions as well as file appropriate interlocutory applications which shall be 4 AIR 2002 SC 3369 5 (2016) 1 SCC 332 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2181 WP No.35676/2025 considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. vi. Subject to the aforesaid directions and liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner, petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14