The petitioner-defendant No.3 has called in question

the validity of the order at Annexure-'G' dated 29.11.2022

passed on I.A.No.8/2022 in O.S.No.701/2014 by the Court

of LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore

(CCH-53), whereby I.A.No.8/2022 filed by the plaintiff

under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking for amendment

of the plaint came to be allowed.

The parties are referred to as per their ranks

before the trial Court.

The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.701/2014

seeking for decree of perpetual injunction restraining the

defendant No.3 from

constructing

the

unauthorised

- 3 -

building and encroaching the plaintiff's compound on the

Southern side of suit 'A' schedule property and had sought

for perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.3 from

illegal construction of the apartment on 'A' schedule

property and had also sought for a direction to the

defendant Nos.1 and 2 [Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara

Palike (BBMP)] to demolish the building to bring it within

the sanction plan and Bye-laws of BBMP.

4.

Subsequently, it comes out from the admitted

facts that amendment was permitted, whereby the plaintiff

had inserted para-3(a) and had also sought for additional

relief in the prayer column as prayer c(i). Further,

Schedule 'B' also of the suit property also came to be

amended. Para-3(a), prayer c(i) and Schedule 'B'

property read as follows:-

"3(a) The Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff

is the owner of the schedule "B" property having

purchased from one Smt.Leelamba W/o Late

B.K.Narasimhamurthy and his Legal heirs, vide

- 4 -

document

No.BSG-1-07284-2004-05

3

CD

No.BSGD47,

dated

23-03-2005,

in

the

sub

registrar of Basavanagudi which is clearly mention

that the northern portion of the property of

plaintiff in schedule "B" property and southern

portion of schedule "A" property. The defendant

No.3 is putting up construction by encroaching

without living set back towards the northern side

of the plaintiff property measuring 146 ft. which is

being construction illegally which has to be

demolished to bring the building within the

purview of the sanction plan."

"(c)(i) For the direct to the defendant No.1

and 2 to demolish the unauthorized construction

built on the northern side of the plaintiff property.

SCHEDULE "B" PROPERTY

All the piece and parcel of the site and house

property bearing old corporation No.152, new

corporation No.11, situated at Devanatha char

street, Chamarajpet, Bangalore, measuring east to

west 146 feet and north to south 36 feet with

residential house bounded on the :-

East by

:

Conservancy

West by

:

Devanthachar Street

North by

:

Private property

South by

:

Private property

- 5 -

Thereafter, additional written statement came to be filed

and when the matter was posted for evidence of the

defendant and at the stage of arguments as stated by

learned counsel for the petitioner, the present amendment

application came to be filed.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 -

plaintiff would submit that the defendants, whose evidence

was closed came to be reopened by virtue of allowing of

I.A.Nos.6/2022 and 7/2022 and therefore, in effect, the

application was filed still at the stage of evidence of the

defendants. The application for amendment I.A.No.8/2022

which has been filed seeks to bring out the following

amendments:-

"PROPOSED AMENDMENT SOUGHT FOR:

TO INCORPORATE PARA No.8(a) TO PARA

No.8(g) AFTER

PARA NO.8(g) IN THE

MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT AS UNDER

8(a): The Plaintiff humbly submits that at the time

of filing of this Suit, the Defendant No. 3 was putting

up construction and he had not completed the

construction

the

entire

building.

During

the

- 6 -

pendency

of

this

Suit,

without

securing

any

permission from this Hon'ble Court, the Defendant

No.3 has completed the construction after a couple

of years. The Plaintiff humbly submits that he has

stated in his Plaint that the Defendant No.3 has

encroached his property, the Defendant No.3 is

putting up cons