The court's decision emphasized that an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should not change the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 27/1/2023 passed in O.S. No. 57/2012 by the Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaghatagi, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial Court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the respondent No.1/ plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit O.S. No. 57/2012 for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, initially respondents No.2 to 7 were arrayed as defendants and the suit having been partly decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 04. 07.2018, the respondents/ defendants preferred an appeal which was allowed by the first appellate Court and the matter remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh vide judgment dtd. 26/1/2021 passed in R.A. No. 176/2018. Subsequent to remand, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating certain events that had transpired during the pendency of the suit including pleadings and prayer in relation to the registered sale deed dtd. 7/3/2022 executed in favour of the petitioner herein subsequently arrayed as defendant No.1. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner herein, the trial Court proceed to allow the same by holding as under:

"Applicant/plaintiff has filed this application praying for permission to amend the plaint as per the proposed amendment.

2. Application is supported by the affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff wherein it is contended that he has filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of land Sy.No.41/2 on the basis of the agreement for sale. During the pendency of the proceedings the defendants have illegally alienated the suit property in favour of Fakkirappa S/o Karabasappa Chatni through registered sale deed dtd.: 7/3/2022, the defendants only in order to cause harassment and to dupe the hard earnest money paid by the plaintiff have created illegal transaction and sale deed in favour of FakkirappaS/o Karabasappa Chatni, the purchaser is arrayed as defendant No.8, so it is necessary to set up the pleading in respect of the sale deed in his favour and prayer to that effect in the plaint. The proposed amendment will neither change the nature of suit nor affect the cause of action. If the proposed amendment is not allowed plaintiff will be put to untold hardship and irreparable loss and it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings may likely to be arose, on the contrary no loss or injustice will be caused to the defendants if the application is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for defendant No.8 has filed objections denying the application and contents of the affidavit as false. It is contended that this case was remanded by the Hon'ble appellate court for limited purpose and the plaintiff cannot enlarge the same by filing vexatious applications, plaintiff has not sought for any relief of permanent injunction against the vendors of defendant No.8 as such he cannot seek such relief against this defendant and it is barred by order 2 rule 2 CPC. It is further contended that this case was remanded for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the signatures of the defendants No.1 to 7 in the alleged sale agreements dtd. 20/11/2011 and 13/12/2010 and passing ofRs.6, 000/-, however the plaintiff without limiting his scope of issue No.2 and 3 has filed frivolous application which is not maintainable. It is further contended that the plaintiff through the present application is introducing new cause of action and also seeking the relief of declaration, which will change the nature and colour of the case from specific performance of contract. It is further contended that plaintiff had accepted the dism