Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed liberally to address the real issues in controversy, but cannot introduce new causes of action.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner, defendant No.1 in O.S.No.5335/2014 on the file of the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-27), Bengaluru (for short, 'Trial Court') is before this Court against order dtd. 3/6/2023 allowing I.A.No.19 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint to include additional averments as well as to add additional prayer.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy for Sri.J.M.Rajanna Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.1, learned senior counsel Sri.D.L.Jagadeesh for Sri.Omran Gulam Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff and learned counsel Sri.H.N.Divya Tej, for Sri.R.Kothwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2/defendant No.2. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would submit that suit of the respondent No.1/plaintiff as originally filed was for partition of suit schedule properties and to allot 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and for accounts. It is submitted that the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed written statement. Learned senior counsel would submit that during pendency of the suit, the parties to the suit i.e., plaintiff and defendant No.1/petitioner herein entered into settlement and accordingly, plaintiffrespondent No.1 executed registered release deed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1 by agreeing to receive a sum of Rs.3.5 Crores and the respondent/plaintiff received a sum of Rs.30, 00, 000.00. It was agreed that Rs.2.00 crores will be payable within 2 years from the date of registered release deed and as a guarantee for payment of the said amount, five sites were given to first respondent/plaintiff, which are valued more than Rs.2.00 Crores. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has also agreed to withdraw the suit and other proceedings. It is submitted that the respondent No.1/plaintiff having accepted five sites, executed registered gift deed in respect of the said five sites gifting the same to her mother under registered gift deed dtd. 17/10/2019.

4. Learned senior counsel would submit that suit is at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, which means trial has commenced. At that stage, respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.19 to amend the plaint to include additional averments as well as to add additional prayer seeking declaration that the document obtained by defendant i.e., petitioner herein in the name of release deed dtd. 26/7/2019 and rectification deed dtd. 31/10/2019 and also gift deed dtd. 17/10/2019 executed by respondent No.1/plaintiff in favour of her mother are void and unenforceable. It is contended that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is not entitled to seek declaration of release deed dtd. 26/7/2019 since the same is acted upon by plaintiff by receiving part of the amount as well as receiving five sites as guarantee to the balance amount and also the execution of gift deed by plaintiff herself in pursuance to the release deed. Moreover, learned senior counsel would submit that to challenge the gift deed dtd. 17/10/2019, mother of plaintiff in whose favour the sites are gifted is not party to the suit. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the plaintiff will have to file separate suit seeking appropriate relief based on release deed dtd. 26/7/2019 and it is not open for the respondent No.1/plaintiff to challenge the said release deed in the present partition suit. Learned senior counsel would submit that allowing of amendment application would change the nature of the suit and amendment sought to include additional prayer is on a different cause of action. Thus, he prays to allow the writ petition and to reject I.A.No.19 for amendment.

5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.D.L.Jagadeesh would support the order passed by the Trial Court and would submit that additional prayer sought is relatable to partition. Since the respondent No.1/plaintiff was entitled for share, the peti