DATED

03.09.2022

PASSED

IN

O.S.NO.

5427/2012,

PASSED

BY

LEARNED

HONBLE

XVIII

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, (CCH-10)

AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.14 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally

signed by

PRAMILA G V

Location:

HIGH COURT

OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ORDER

The petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.5427/2012 on

the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru

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

the order dated 03.09.2022 by which I.A filed by the

respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is

allowed and respondent/plaintiff is permitted to amend the

plaint to include additional prayer to declare that plaintiff

as sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

2.

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shreenivasa.G.A.,

for petitioner/defendant and Smt.Renukamba.B.P., for

respondent/plaintiff. Perused the writ petition papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant

would submit that suit is one initially filed with a prayer to

declare that sale deed dated 27.04.2012 executed by first

defendant in favour of second defendant is not valid and

not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction.

When the suit was at the stage of further cross-

examination of PW1, respondent/plaintiff filed application

- 3 -

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

include prayer to declare that the plaintiff as sole and

absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Learned

counsel would submit that the Trial Court could not have

entertained the said application for amendment after

commencement of trial, when the respondent/plaintiff has

failed to satisfy due diligence. Further, learned counsel

would submit that by allowing of amendment application

seeking declaration of title, the entire nature and

complexion of the suit has changed and the prayer for

declaration of title is barred by time. Thus, learned counsel

would submit that Trial Court committed an error in

allowing the application. Learned counsel would submit

that amendment application is filed after nearly 10 years

from the date of filing the suit. The Trial Court committed

further error in allowing the belated application for

amendment. Further, learned counsel would submit that

petitioner had filed an application for framing additional

issue and when such application for framing additional

issue is filed, the present amendment application is filed.

- 4 -

Learned counsel would submit that the said application for

framing of issue is also rejected which is the subject

matter of W.P.No.25993/2022. Thus, he prays for allowing

the writ petition.

4.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

Smt.Renukamba.B.P.,

for

respondent/plaintiff

would

submit that the amendment sought is consequential to

first prayer to declare that sale deed dated 27.04.2012 is

not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. Thus, learned

counsel would submit that the Trial Court rightly allowed

the amendment. Learned counsel would submit that

amendment in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC could be

allowed at any stage of the proceedings and the present

application is filed before petitioner/defendant could

complete his cross-examination of PW1. Thus, it is

submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the

petitioner/defendant on allowing amendment application.

Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

- 5 -

5.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

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

only point which falls for consideration is as to,

“Whether interference is required with the

impugned

order

allowing

amendment

application?”

The answer to the above point would be in the

Negative for the following reasons:

6.

The suit filed initially was for a prayer to declare

the sale deed dated 27.04.2012 is not valid and not

binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction.

When the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of

PW1, plaintiff