- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 36018 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VENAKTESH G S/O LATE GURAPPA @ HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O VITTASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 068 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDESWARA N K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PILLAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O BOMMANAHALLI BEGUR ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 560 068 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 2. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE MYAKALAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LR SRI GOPAL S/O LATE MYAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O VITTASANDRA PALYA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 068 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11/11/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU ON I.A. FOR AMENDMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 1766/2005 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND DISMISS I.A. FOR AMENDMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.1766/2005 is directed against the impugned order dated 11.11.2025, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional reliefs together with corresponding pleadings was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against petitioner/defendant No.2 and respondent No.2/defendant No.1(a) for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit being contested by the defendants, at the stage of cross-examination of PW.1, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 incorporating additional prayers and corresponding pleadings with reference to certain subsequent events that are alleged to have transpired/occurred during the pendency of the suit. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court proceeded to pass the interim order allowing the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation and as such the trial Court committed an error in allowing the application. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 was never in possession of the suit schedule property as can be seen from the material on record and on this ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 6. A perusal of the impugned order and the material on record will clearly indicate that by way of the proposed amendment, respondent No.1/plaintiff wants to incorporate certain subsequent events that had allegedly transpired during the pendency of the suit and together with corresponding prayer in this regard. 7. In this context, it is needless to state that since the proposed amendment pertains to certain subsequent events that had occurred during the pendency of the suit, the question of respondent No.1/plaintiff pleading the subsequent event at an earlier point of time or at the time of institution of the suit would not arise and the trial Court was fully justified in permitting respondent No.1 to incorporate additional pleadings and prayers pertaining to subsequent events, which obviously could not have been pleaded earlier to occurrence of the said events. 8. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel to the petitioner that the proposed amendment was not relevant or necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties cannot be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 accepted and the trial Court was fully justified in permitting the amendment by coming to the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment was relevant, necessary and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy and that the same would not change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action. 9. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment was hopelessly barred by limitation is concerned, the said contention and the right of the petitioner can be adequately safeguarded 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 application, which was filed on 03.06.2025 by leaving open the issue/question of limitation to be decided along with other issues in the suit as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Ors reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C.Hanumanthappa v. H.B.Shivakumar reported in (2016) 1 SCC 332. It is also pertinent to note that while considering an application for amendment, the merits/demerits of the rival contentions - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 cannot be gone into as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & ors v. Modi & ors., reported in AIR 2006 SC 1647. Under these circumstances, even this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 10. Upon re-consideration, re-evaluation and re- appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court permitting amendment is in conformity and consonance with well settled principles of law governing amendment of pleadings as enunciated in various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court including LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., reported in (2022) 17 SCC 1, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & ors. reported in 2024 INSC 726 and Mohammed Rafi Vs. Bande Nawaz in W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. 11. It is, therefore, clear that the interim order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when the petitioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including the contentions/defence of limitation, maintainability etc., which would have to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. 12. In the result, the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) The application for amendment filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff stands allowed 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 which was filed on 03.06.2025 and the question/issue regarding limitation is kept open to be decided by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit. iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including the defence of limitation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9080 WP No. 36018 of 2025 iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9