The petitioner, defendant No.8 in O.S.No.230/2007

on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Trial Court’) is before this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

challenging

the

order

dated

30.06.2023

allowing

IA.No.1/2023 filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint to include

additional facts and additional prayers including prayer for

possession.

Heard learned

counsel Sri.K.K.Vasanth for

petitioner/defendant No.8 and learned counsel Sri.Rama

Reddy.B.C., for respondent No.1/plaintiff. Perused the writ

petition papers.

Learned

counsel

Sri.K.K.Vasanth

for

petitioner/defendant No.8 would submit that the suit as

filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff was one for permanent

- 4 -

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with

plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property

and

for

permanent

injunction

restraining

defendant Nos.7 and 8 from alienating or creating any

charge over the suit schedule property. After filing of the

written

statement,

respondent

No.1/plaintiff

filed

application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC

to include additional facts and to include additional prayers

of declaration of title; declaration of sale deed dated

11.12.2003 as null and void and also for possession of the

suit schedule property. Learned counsel would submit that

said application was opposed by petitioner/defendant No.8

contending that nature of amendment sought would

entirely change the nature and complexion of the suit and

also amendment sought to include prayers would be hit by

law of limitation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant

No.8 would submit that the Trial Court committed an error

in allowing I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of

- 5 -

CPC and impugned order of the Trial Court is the result of

total non-application of mind. Learned counsel would

further submit that Trial Court without noticing that

respondent No.1/plaintiff had sought additional prayers of

declaration and possession, proceeded to allow the

amendment application on the premise that amendment

sought is only to correct the description of the plaintiff.

Learned counsel would submit that the Trial Court failed to

take note of the prayers sought by way of amendment

while passing impugned order. The Trial Court failed to

examine as to whether such amendment could be

permitted and whether as contended, it would be barred

by law of limitation. Thus, he prays for allowing writ

petition and to set aside impugned order.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.1/plaintiff would submit that, amendment sought by

respondent No.1/plianitff is pre-trial amendment, as the

plaintiff had not yet led her evidence, though the mater

was posted for plaintiff’s evidence. Learned counsel would

- 6 -

submit that initially suit is filed for bare injunction and the

plaintiff taking note of the contentions raised in the written

statement intends to amend the suit prayer for declaration

of title as well as declaration of sale deed executed by

defendants as null and void. Thus, he supports the order

passed by Trial Court.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am

of the view that impugned order dated 30.06.2023 on

I.A.No.1/2023 is liable to be set aside as the same is

result of non-application of mind by the trial Judge and the

same requires re-consideration for the following reasons:

Order

VI

Rule

17

of

CPC

provides

for

amendment of pleadings. In terms of the said provision

the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either

of the parties to alter or amend pleadings in such manner

and on such terms, as may be just and necessary for the

purpose of determining real questions in controversy

between the parties. But the proviso to Rule 17 puts

- 7 -

restriction on the Court, while considering amendment

application

after

commencement

of

trial.