Amendments to pleadings under CPC are permissible to ensure justice and proper adjudication, balancing the need for diligence with avoidance of multiplicity of litigation.

ORDER :

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.01.2024 passed on an interlocutory application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in O.S.No.445/2020 by the Court of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. O.S.No.445/2020 (Old No.1137/2005) is filed by the respondents herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. In the said suit, defendants had filed written statement opposing the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of recording the plaintiffs' evidence, application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiffs to incorporate proposed paragraph nos.6(b) to 6(j) after paragraph 6(a) in the plaint, and also to amend the prayer column by incorporating a prayer to declare the plaintiffs as absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property, and also to declare that the sale deed dated 09.10.1995 alleged to have been executed by Govindappa in favour of defendant nos.1 & 2, and another sale deed dated 09.10.1995 alleged to have been executed by Govindappa in favour of defendant nos.3 to 5 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, as sham documents, null and void. A further amendment was sought to amend the schedule of the plaint by inserting the words "Re- Sy.No.68" after the words "Sy.No.41/1". This application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, allowed the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the defendants. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant nos.1 to 3 are before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the relief sought in the proposed prayer is barred by limitation. The application has been filed at a belated stage when the suit was at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence and therefore, in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, unless due diligence is proved, the Trial Court could not have entertained the application. Plaintiffs had earlier filed IA No.4 with a prayer to amend the plaint by changing survey number of the property as 'Sy No.68' instead of 'Sy No.41/1' by raising similar contentions which is now sought to be incorporated in the proposed paragraphs. Plaintiffs had earlier filed an application before the revenue authorities for change of revenue entries in respect of the land in dispute. Only after having failed in their attempt, they have filed this application seeking amendment of the plaint. In support of her arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases :-

(i) Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and Others - (2020) 11 SCC 549

(ii) Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Registered) vs. Ramesh Chander and Others - (2010) 14 SCC 596 and

(iii) Vishwambhar and Others vs. Laxminarayan (Dead) through LRs and Another - (2001) 6 SCC 163.

5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the contesting respondents has oppo