ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated

24.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.6062/2021 by the XL Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said application filed by the respondent – plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the prayer column in the suit and corresponding pleadings was allowed by the trial court.

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

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs against the petitioner – defendant in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner – defendant. Prior to commencement of trial, the respondent – plaintiff filed the instant application I.A.No.6 seeking to incorporate certain additional pleadings as regards the subsequent events that had transpired during the pendency of the suit. It was contended in the application filed by the respondent that subsequent to institution of the suit, petitioner – defendant had illegally and highhandedly dispossessed the respondent – plaintiff from the suit schedule property in violation of the interim order, as a result of which, the respondent – plaintiff was compelled to seek amendment by incorporating the prayer for declaration and possession and also corresponding pleadings in the body of the plaint. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the trial court has proceeded to summarily allow the application by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial court has noticed that on 30.10.2023 itself, the trial court had taken objections to I.A.6 as not filed and posted the matter to 24.11.2023, on which date, the petitioner and her counsel were once again absent leading to the trial court allowing the application.

5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an opportunity may be granted in favour of the petitioner – defendant to file objections to I.A.6 and the same may be considered in accordance with law by the trial court, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu & another – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited – AIR 2022 SC 4256, since the proposed amendment merely seeks to introduce certain subsequent events that had allegedly transpired / occurred during the pendency of the suit and the petitioner would be entitled to file additional written statement repudiating the amended pleadings of the respondent – plaintiff, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that any prejudice or hardship would be caused to the petitioner if the amendment is allowed, particularly when the issues / question of limitation could be kept open by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from the date of filing of I.A.6 i.e,.

21.07.2023.

6. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment application cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath &

others – (2015) 5 SCC 423.

7. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated 24.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.6062/2021 by the trial court.

(ii) It is however made clear tha