ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

16.08.2016 passed on IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') in O.S.No.27364/2012 on the file of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge at Mayohall, Bengaluru.

2. Heard Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.D.P.Shivaprasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed suit for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs in respect of suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed written statement. It is submitted that the defendants have denied the title of the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the written statement referring to the sale deeds dated 06.06.1987 and 14.11.1994. Hence, the plaintiff was compelled to file an application for amendment of the suit seeking additional prayer under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Trial Court, without considering the application on its merit and without assigning any appropriate reasons, has rejected the application. It is further submitted that the application is filed at the initial stage of the proceedings and even the issues in the suit have not been framed. Hence, the rejection of the application by the Trial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 'M.S.ANANDA KUMAR Vs. JAYANNA' (2015) 4 AKR 85. It is also submitted that the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court that the cause of action would change by allowing the application, is liable to be rejected as the petitioner came to know about the sale deeds only after the defendants filed the written statement. Hence, he had no other option to file application seeking amendment of the plaint. Therefore, he seeks to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the petitioner has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the present application for an amendment is abuse of process of law and if the amendment is allowed, the nature of suit and cause of action would change. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction seeking prayer to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by granting permanent injunction. In the said suit, the defendants have entered appearance and filed detailed written statement wherein the defendants have specifically averred that house site Nos.15, 16 and 17 in HASB khata No.328 situated at Kaggadasapura Village, K.R.PUram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring East to West 90 feet and North to Sourth 40 feet originally belonged to one Abbaiah, S/o Kalappa and the said Abbaiah sold the said sites in favour of Ammini U.N., W/o Upendra Narayan vide sale deed dated 06.06.1987. In turn, said Ammini sold the said sites in favour of Smt.Sarojini Shukla, the defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 14.11.1994. When the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff and made a specific assertion in the written statement with regard to the ownership of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed an application seeking for amendment of prayer in the suit and seeking an additional prayer to declare the sale deed dated 06.06.1987 executed by Abbaiah in favour of Ammini, as not binding on the plaintiff. The material available on record indicates that the said application is filed at the initial state of the proceedings and even the issues are not framed. Hence, there is no impediment in allowing the said application, mer