Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC require due diligence; delays in seeking such amendments post-trial commencement can justify rejection to prevent prejudice to opposing parties.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court calling in question an order dated 23-04-2025 passed by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.XVI in O.S.No.6773 of 2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The averment in the petition is that a partition deed was entered into between M.Kadarappa and his children on 24-03-1961. Under the partition deed, the suit schedule property fell into the share of father of the plaintiffs 1 to 13. On 01-02-2007 all the plaintiffs/petitioners herein executed a joint development agreement in favour of plaintiff No.16 M/s Adarsh Developers, a partnership firm in respect of land in Sy.Nos. 60/4 and 61 at Yediyur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. In furtherance of the joint development agreement, a supplementary agreement was entered into between plaintiffs 1 to 15 and plaintiff No.16 in respect of the same survey numbers. Alleging certain disturbances from the defendants, the plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.6773 of 2011 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. The defendants file their written statement in the suit on 28-01-2012. The concerned Court, then frames issues on 04-01-2013. 12 years passed by. The matter is set at the stage of final arguments after conclusion of evidence. The plaintiffs then come up with an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint in I.A.No.16. The defendants object to it by filing objections. The concerned Court, in terms of the impugned order, dismisses the application filed by the plaintiffs. The dismissal of the application is what brings the plaintiffs to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri D.L.Jagadeesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Vaibhav Malimath, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri D.L.Jagadeesh appearing for the petitioners would contend that the change that is sought by way of amendment to the plaint and the prayer, is change in survey number. The reasons rendered in the application were that due to oversight Sy.No.61 is mentioned in para 2 of the plaint and schedule to the plaint. The same is as found in the joint development agreement. However, there is difference in measurement to the tune of 30,000 sq. ft. in Sy.Nos. 60/4 and 61. This is sought to be corrected by the application so filed. The learned senior counsel submits that what the defendants claimed in their written statement is site No.4118 which is carved out of Sy.No.60/4. Therefore, the present dispute is only in respect of Sy.No.60/4 and as such amendment was sought for deletion of Sy.No.61 in the plaint schedule. He would contend that no prejudice would be caused to any party if Sy.No.61 stood deleted from the schedule to the suit. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons , (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256 to buttress his submission that the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot summarily be rejected, if it is not going to change nature of the suit.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Vaibhav Malimath, appearing for the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend th