Court affirmed that amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can be allowed at any stage to promote justice, provided they do not cause injustice to opposing parties.

ORDER :

S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1643/2020 (Old O.S.No.114/2020) is directed against the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.XII by the XI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the said application filed by the respondent – defendant No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of the written statement was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. For the order proposed, notice to respondent is dispensed with.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking for permanent injunction in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the defendants and the trial Court framed issues and the plaintiffs adduced oral and documentary evidence and pursuant to which, respondent – defendants commenced the evidence and at the stage of further examination of PW-1, the respondent filed the instant application seeking permission to amend the written statement by seeking incorporation of additional pleadings in support of their defence. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, by holding as under:

“ORDERS ON IA NO.XII

This IA is filed when the matter is posted for further chief of DW1.

The defendant No.2 has filed this application IA No.12, U/o 6 Rule 17 R/W/S 151 of CPC, seeking for the amendment of written statement, after para No.13 to insert 13(a); by stating following reasons;

1. The schedule property bearing Sy.No.134/1, totally measuring about 2 acre 39 guntas, which is earlier inam land which was granted by the Special Tahasildar, Mysuru, in Masanegowda and Madegowda S/o Kambegowda Dt:17.07.1958 and they have filed a separate application under Rule 7 of Inam Act., and the Special Tahasildar has issued the endorsement Dt:18.10.1960 in the name of Kambegowda and Masanegowda jointly as stated above.

2. The schedule property is not the property of the predecessor of the plaintiffs as contended.

3. The said facts has to be inserted in the pleadings along with the document which was received by the defendants on 02.05.2025 and the said documents are very essential and necessary to state and discard the contention of the plaintiff claim as it is not the own property of the plaintiff and her predecessor.

4. If this application is allowed, it will not change the nature of the suit nor cause of action.

2. The plaintiff No.3 has filed the objection against this application by stating that, 1. The schedule property i.e., land bearing Sy.No.134/1 measuring 2 acre 39 guntas is absolutely belongs to Masanegowda S/o Late Madegowda, he had no male issues and during his lifetime he gifted the portion of schedule property i.e., Sy.No.134/1 measuring 1 acre out of 2 acre 39 guntas and other properties in favour of Smt.Ramamma and her husband Kambegowda on 21.10.1963 and he retain 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.134/1 for his maintenance and after his death, the Ramamma got rights over the above said 1 acre 39 guntas by succession.

2. The Ramamma D/o Madamma and her son Mallesh are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and khatha of the plaint schedule property has been changed in the name of Mallesh S/o Madamma and Kambegowda through MR No.58/2006-07.

3. After the death of said Mallesh, the wife of said Mallesh for change of khatha in respect of plaint schedule property and concerned authority changed the khatha of the schedule property in the name of plaintiff No.3 through MR no.19/2008-09. 4. The defendant No.1 filed O