Amendments to pleadings may be allowed post-trial if due diligence is demonstrated, and if they do not change the cause of action or result in injustice.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Learned counsel for petitioners does not press this petition as against petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and 11 to 31, as he has not filed vakalath on behalf of them. Hence, this petition is filed in respect of petitioner Nos.9 and 10, who are defendant Nos.5 and 6 before the trial Court and they are inclined to continue this petition.

2. This petition is filed by petitioner Nos.9 and 10 aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.XXIII filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.8735/2012 by the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

3. In view of the learned counsel for petitioners not pressing this petition as against petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and 11 to 31, petitioner Nos.9 and 10 shall be treated as petitioner Nos.1 and 2. For the sake of brevity and easy understanding, they shall be referred to as defendant Nos.5 and 6 as per their status before the trial Court.

4. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

5. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-plaintiff, as this Court is not inclined to show indulgence in this petition.

6. The suit came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession. Some of them are placed ex parte and some of them are contesting the original suit proceedings. Now the matter is set down for arguments.

7. When such being the case, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as under:

“For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit the Plaintiff/Applicant pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit an amendment by incorporating in plaint/prayer more particularly mentioned hereunder, in the interest of justice and equity.

Amendment Sought for:-

1) To add in plaint para No.6. “6.a. In the course of evidence the PW-1 and defendants the plaintiff learnt that some portion of Item No.3 was alienated to third parties and due to efflux of time the questioning of alienation may not be possible and therefore the plaintiff is restricting her claim in respect of item No.3 to extent of 1 acre 7^1/2 guntas”.

2) To add in Schedule Item No.3 “Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.16, measuring 1 acre 7^1/2 guntas out of 4 acre 30 guntas, situated at Birjenahalli Village, Santhekallahalli Post, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bounded on

East by : Shialaghatta Road

West by : Sy No. 15

North by : Pillappa’s Land

South by : Sy No. 16/2

And delete the “Agricultural land bearing Sy No.16, measuring 4 acre 30 guntas, situated at Birjenahalli Village, Santhekallahalli Post, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bounded on

East by : Road leads to Shidlaghatta and land belongs to Reddeyappa

West by : Inamthy of Gopalswamy Temple and land belongs to Marakka

North by : Land belongs to Pillappa

South by : Lands belongs to Doddavenkatarayappa and Pillappa”

8. The said application was objected to by defendant No.5 and 6 by filing a detailed statement of objections.

9. Upon hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant Nos.5 and 6, the trial Court has allowed the said application for amendment by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/- to defendant Nos.5 and 6. The trial Court has dealt with the matter more specifically at para-10 of the impugned order to show how the plaintiff has made out a case to incorporate the amendment despite the fact that the application is filed at the post trial stage, more specifically at the stage when the matter was posted for arguments.

10. It is no doubt true that an amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of trial unless proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is met with proper justi