- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 37223 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SOWMYA S/O YALLENDRA BABU AGED 35 YEARS, R/AT KEB QUARTERS, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMAKURU DT. - 561 202. NOW R/AT GREEN LAYOUT, INDUPUR ROAD, OPP TO MS HOSPITAL, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMAKURU DT. - 561 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.B.R,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. P. G. SREEHARI W/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SMT. AMBIKA W/O P.G.SREEHARI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT BANASHANKARI EXTENSION, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMAKURU DT. - 561 202. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS DIPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED:05.01.2026) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION, SETTING-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2025 PASSED ON IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 AND DISMISS THE SAME IN O.S. NO.207/2019 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA (ANNEXURE-A). Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025 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 plaintiff in O.S.No.207/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, whereby application I.A.No.II filed by the respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, service of notice to respondents is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants who are none other than husband and wife for specific performance of contract in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The suit is contested by the respondents-defendants by filing their written statement. After framing of issues by the Trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025 examined herself as PW-1 and at the stage of cross-examination of PW-1, the respondents filed an application I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of written statement, which culminated in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, which allowed I.A.No.II by holding as under: ORDERS ON I.A.NO.II FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.2 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC The counsel for defendant No.2 has filed IA No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for seeking permission to amend the written statement as contended in the application. 2. In the affidavit the defendant No.2 stated that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract the suit schedule property was seized by the Lokayuktha and there was a suit filed by the Yallendra Babu the husband of plaintiff in O.S.No.83/2016 which was dismissed. The said facts are not inserted in the written statement by oversight and now the said facts are necessary to insert in the proposed amendment in para No.3 after para No.2 in the written statement of defendants. Hence, prays to allow the application. 3. On the other hand counsel for plaintiff filed objection contended that it is a suit for specific performance of contract based on Agreement of Sale dated 19.03.2018 in respect of suit schedule property. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025 plaintiff is already adduced her evidence and now posted for cross of PW.1, at this stage the defendants have filed application deliberately to amend the written statement. He application is not maintainable when the trial has been commenced. Hence, prays to reject the application. 4. Heard both. 5. The points arise for determination of this Court as follows: 1. Whether the defendant No.2 has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application? 2. What order? 6. My answer to the aforesaid points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1:- On going through the record, it is clear that when the matter was posted for Cross of PW.1, the counsel for defendants come up with present application for seeking amend to the written statement. The defendants contended that the schedule property has been seized by the Lokayuktha Police and there was a suit filed by the husband of plaintiff in O.S.No.83/2016 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada which was dismissed by the Court. The proceedings which initiated through one Gangadhara before Lokayuktha is pending. Therefore, the said pleadings are necessary to insert in the written statement. Further the sale agreement in this case is taken place in playing fraud and undue influence, coercion which acted by parties. Hence prays to allow the application. The said application objected by the counsel for plaintiff contended that the pleadings are not necessary as trial has been commenced. 8. On perusal of proposed amendment, it is clear that it is the facts narrated by the defendants with regarding pendency of Civil suit and pendency of proceedings before the Lokayuktha the said facts are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. If the application is allowed no hardship and no new cause of action arise to the plaintiff case. On the other hand, if the application is rejected definitely it leads to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, considering above facts and circumstances, the application filed by the defendants is deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to answer point No.1 in the Affirmative. 9. Point No.2:- In view of above assigned reasons, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER I.A.No.II filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.2,000/-.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered the rival contentions and allowed the application and as such, the impugned order is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., - (2022) 16 SCC 1 and Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726. It also relevant to state that since the petitioner – plaintiff would have an opportunity to file the rejoinder to the amended written statement, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff, if the application filed by respondent No.2-defendant No.2 was allowed by the Trial Court. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner- plaintiff that the proposed amendment was not necessary since the same was already pleaded in the original written statement is concerned, it is relevant to state that apart from the fact that the proposed amendment merely seeks to amplify the existing written statement averment, the various contentions urged in the proposed amendment would necessarily have to be considered during the course of the trial and as such, it cannot be said that the proposed amendment was impermissible in law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to contain any illegality or infirmity nor has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be disposed of without interfering in the impugned order. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petition may be disposed of without interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner –plaintiff to file rejoinder/reply to the amended written statement. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025 iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43