- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 36819 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K. RAJA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY NAIDU, NO.32/1, MOORE ROAD, 3RD CROSS, FRASER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK HUDDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. V. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O LATE MR. VENKATESHULU NAIDU, NO.17, AGA ABAS ALI ROAD, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 042. 2. MRS. LATHASRI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, W/O OF MR. K RAJA, NO.32/1, MOORE ROAD, III CROSS, FRASER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. 3. MR. V THYAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O OF LATE MR. VENKATESH NAIDU, NO.32/1, MOORE ROAD, III CROSS, Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 FRASER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. 4. MR. M. KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O LATE MR. MUNIRAJU NAIDU, NO.15, CHINNAPPA LAYOUT, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024. 5. MR. E MUNIRATHNAM, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O MR. ETHIRAJULU NAIDU, NEW NO.191/1, OLD NO.65/1, V CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. 6. THE SENIOR / SUB-REGISTRAR, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001. 7. MR. GIRIRAJASHANKAR S/O LATE SRI. D VENKATESHULU NAID AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT. NO.17, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. YUKTHA ANIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 DISPENSED WITH ON 08.12.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2025, PASSED ON I.A.NO.2/2025 (ANNEXURE-N) IN O.S.NO.2192/2008, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE HONBLE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 XXVII ADDI CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CH-9), WHICH IS BEFORE IN CHARGE COURT, HONBLE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-42) AND ETC., 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 1st defendant in O.S.No.2192/2008 is directed against the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the XXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the application I.A.No.2/2025 filed by the 1st respondent – plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement / reply / rejoinder filed by the plaintiff to the counter claim filed by the petitioner was allowed by the trial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 1st respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 against the petitioner – 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 7 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner – 1st defendant who not only filed his written statement but also put forth a counter claim against the plaintiff who filed his written statement / reply / rejoinder and contested the counter claim. 4. The 1st respondent – plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.2/2025 seeking amendment of the written statement / reply / rejoinder filed by him to the counter claim of the petitioner – 1st defendant. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial court proceeded to allow the application by permitting the 1st respondent – plaintiff to rectify and correct certain typographical / clerical errors and mistakes that had crept into the written statement / reply / rejoinder by allowing the plaintiff to amend his pleadings in this regard by holding as under:- ORDER ON I.A.No.2/2025 The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed I.A. No.2/2025 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to permit the plaintiff to amend the written-statement - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 filed to the counter claim of defendant No.1 on 11.08.2025 in order to rectify the typographical and clerical error that have crept into the written-statement filed to the counter claim. 2. It is stated that the plaintiff has sought to addpara 2(a) after para 2 and make certain insertions in para 3 to 15 of the written-statement to the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1. 3. The counsel for the defendant No.1 has filed detailed objection to the said application contending that, the plaintiff at the time of filing the written-statement on 11.08.2025 has categorically made admissions regarding execution of agreement to sell, consideration receipt from the defendant No.1, execution of GPA and pendency of suit in O.S No.2404/1994. The aforesaid admissions so made by the plaintiff in his written-statement clearly indicate that he has not denied the case of the defendant No.1. Even though the admissions made by the plaintiff are crystal clear the plaintiff wants to resile their said admissions to deprive the defendant No.1 right accrued to him. The plaintiff cannot take a different stand to seek substitution of his pleadings and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that, the plaintiff in his written-statement dated 11.08.2025 had made certain crucial admissions and the substitution of the pleadings now sought amounts to withdrawal of admissions by way of amendment which are not sustainable. It is further contended that, the plaintiff on the guise of seeking amendment is trying to displace the case of the defendant No.1.It is further contended that, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 application accompanied by the affidavit seeking amendment to the written-statement lacks bonafide as it is intended to set up a frivolous defense which is illegal and unsustainable. It is further contended that, so called amendments are not minor corrections or clarifications but it is an attempt to set up a entire new defense by retracting the earlier defense. The defendant No.1 has also referred to judgment in Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 618 – wherein it is held that, the admission made in the pleadings cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment, if such withdrawal takes away an accrued right of the opposite party. Hence, sought to reject the application. 4. The counsel for the plaintiff has filed writtenargument on I.A No.2/2025. The defendant No.1 also filed written-argument of IA No.2/2025 reiterating the objection averments. The counsel for the plaintiff has filed memo of citations. 5. Heard arguments. Perused the records. 6. Now the points that would arise for my consideration are:- 1. Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to allow the I.A No.2/2025? 2 .What order? 7. My answer to the above points are as under:- Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 R E A S O N S 8. POINT No.1 :- Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and further for the relief of mandatory injunction. The instant application is made by the plaintiff seeking proposed amendment to the written statement to counter claim of the defendant no.1 which is filed at the stage of defendants’ evidence. At an earlier point of time the plaintiff had filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 29.01.2010 and additional affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC on 28.11.2012. This court had by a detailed order dated: 29.10.2015 had permitted the plaintiff to file an additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief. The said order passed by this court was challenged in W.P No.5017/2015. By order dated: 01.01.2023 the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had confirmed the order passed by this court and permitted the plaintiff to file his additional affidavit. 9. This court vide order dated 28.07.2025 had permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint by allowing the application seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff was already covered during the evidence of PW1. The order dtd 28.7.2025 has attained finality. Subsequent to the same the defendant No.1 filed written statement along with counter claim seeking additional reliefs in the written statement and the counter claim. In the counter claim the defendant No.1 has sought following prayers; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 a) Direct the plaintiff and defendant No.7 to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.1 in furtherance of the agreement to sell dated 25.01.1994; b) Upon failure of the plaintiff and defendant No.7 to do so, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to duly execute and register the absolute sale deed in respect of schedule property in favour of the defendant No.1; c) Declare that the unilateral cancellation of the agreement to sell dated 25.01.1994 and GPA dated: 12.07.2000 by the plaintiff illegal, null and void; d) Grant a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff and defendant No.7, or anyone claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; e) Award costs of this counter claim and the original suit and such other reliefs. 10. In response to the counter claim the plaintiff has filed written statement on 11.08.2025 pertaining to the which the instant application. In the written statement filed to the counter claim by the plaintiff herein on 11.8.2025, the plaintiff has already denied the allegations made in the counter claim by making para wise denial. A detailed perusal of the application denotes that, the plaintiff herein wants to add new para No.2(a) to specifically deny that the relief sought in the counter claim arises from the same transaction and subject matter. The averments of para 2 to 14 of the application clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff herein has denied each and every averment taken in the counter claim of the defendant No.1 by specifically denying each and every averment of the counter claim. It is apparent from the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 written statement filed by the plaintiff that after denying the averments of the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1, the plaintiff has reiterated the averments of the counter claim in his written statement. The reiteration of the averments of the counter claim in the written statement filed by the plaintiff though after denial has led to some confusion and ambiguity and therefore in this context the plaintiff has filed the instant application to provide clarity and remove the ambiguity. If the averments narrated in the counter claim of the defendant no.1 are retained in the written statement filed by the plaintiff after para wise denial without permitting the plaintiff to insert the required amendment in the form of denial then the same would create an unnecessary obstacle in understanding the defense of the plaintiff and may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. To avoid the possibility of any kind of confusion and ambiguity the proposed amendment which is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint needs to allowed. Even otherwise the plaintiff has already taken specific stand regarding the GPA dated 12.07.2000, agreement of sale deed dated 21.05.1994, sale deed dated 29.06.2007 in the amended plaint which was filed pursuant to the order on I.A No.10/2025 dated 28.07.2025. When the plaintiff has already taken a categorical stand with reference to the above transactions and amended plaint is filed it cannot be contended that, the plaintiff has admitted all the contentions of the defendant No.1 as raised in his counter claim merely because the plaintiff has reiterated the averments of the counter claim in the rejoinder dated 11.08.2025 after para wise denial. The - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 amendment does not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint. There is nothing to indicate that, the proposed amendment amounts to withdrawal of an admission made by the plaintiff as against the written statement to the counter claim on 11.08.2025. When the plaintiff has already denied the averments of the counter claim by making para wise remarks the contention of the defendant No.1 that the proposed amendment amounts to withdrawal of an admission is not acceptable. In the verifying affidavit annexed to the application the plaintiff has categorically stated that, through inadvertence and over sight certain clerical errors have occurred while referring to the paragraphs to the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 and therefore, in this regard the proposed amendment is sought. In order to give a clear indication of the defense set up by the plaintiff to the counter claim the proposed amendment is absolutely essential. It is well settled that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is a vital provision that ensures flexibility in civil litigation. It enables courts to adapt to the evolving dynamics of a case and ensures that the real issues in dispute are addressed. In Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaoudary in Civil Appeal No. 2431/2019 the Supreme Court held that the Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations." Thus in this backdrop, this court is of the opinion there has been a bonafide mistake on part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff should be allowed to rectify the same. Thus the judgments relied upon by the defendant No.1 are not applicable to the facts of the case. However on account the inadvertence of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has been made to suffer a prolonged trial despite the direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka to dispose of the matter in a time bound period. Therefore the plaintiff is liable to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, I.A No.2/2025 is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 11. POINT NO. 3:- In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R I.A.No.2/2025 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed on a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The plaintiff is permitted to carry out the amendment as prayed in the application.” 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the impugned order passed by the trial court is in conformity / consonance with well settled principle of law governing amendment of pleadings including the judgment of the Apex - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9779 WP No. 36819 of 2025 Court in the cases of Varun Pahwa vs. Renu Choudary – (2019) 15 SCC 628, Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors – AIR 2022 SC 4256 and Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. 2024 INSC 726 as well as the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial court does not contain any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BVK