The petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.4241/2015, on

the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, are

before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India to set aside the order dated 01.07.2023, rejecting

IA.No.8 for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the

CPC.

Heard learned counsel Sri. A. Nagarajappa for

petitioners/plaintiffs and perused the writ petition papers.

Learned counsel for petitioners would submit

that, the petitioners/plaintiffs initially filed a suit with a

prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants

from

interfering

with

the

peaceful

possession

and

enjoyment of the plaintiffs' over the suit schedule

property. When the suit was at the stage of arguments on

main, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed IA.No.8 under Order VI

Rule 17 CPC to add certain facts and also to amend the

prayer column to include the prayer for declaration that

the plaintiffs are the actual owners of the suit schedule

- 4 -

property and to declare that the sale deed dated

14.04.1964, rectification deed dated 29.01.1977, release

deed dated 03.02.2014 and gift deed dated 06.02.2014

are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

The learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs

submit that, during the course of the cross-examination, it

came to light that, unless plaintiffs seek prayer for

declaration, the plaintiffs would not get any relief. Hence

the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment.

5.

It

is

the

contention

of

learned

counsel

Sri

A

Nagarajappa,

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners/plaintiffs that, to minimize the litigation and to

avoid multiplicity of litigation, amendment could be

allowed which is necessary for proper adjudication of the

dispute between the parties. Learned counsel would

submit that, the facts are on record and if the amendment

application is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the

other side and it would also not change the nature of the

- 5 -

suit. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition

permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint.

6.

Having

heard

the

learned

counsel

for

petitioners/plaintiffs and on perusal of the writ petition

papers, I am of the view that, no ground is made out to

interfere with the impugned order rejecting IA.No.8 filed

under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint, for the

following reasons.

7.

The suit initially filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs

is for permanent injunction. Admittedly, on completion of

recording of evidence, the suit was at the stage of

arguments on main. At that stage, IA No.8 under Order VI

Rule 17 of CPC is filed by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint

by adding para-III(9) and para VIII and also to include the

following prayer.

"For decree and judgment declaring that the plaintiff is

actual owner of the suit schedule property and to declare that

the sale deed dated 14.04.1964, rectification deed dated

29.01.1977, release deed dated 03.02.2014 and gift deed dated

06.02.2014 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, in

the interest of justice and equity."

- 6 -

8.

On perusal of the above amendment to include

the prayer it would indicate that, the plaintiffs intends to

convert

the

suit

for

permanent

injunction

into

a

declaration suit, that too when the matter is at the stage

of final arguments on main suit. The above amendment

would change the entire nature and complexion of the

suit. If the amendment is allowed, it would amount to

putting back the entire suit to the stage of framing of

issues and filing of additional written statement. Such

putting back the suit to earlier stage when the suit is at

the stage of final arguments is, impermissible.

9.

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC would permit

amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.

If the amendment is a pre trial amendment, the Court

would allow if the amendment is necessary on terms, but

when the amendment is sought after commencement of

trial, the Court would get jurisdiction only on satisfying