The present respondents as plaintiffs have initiated a

suit against the present petitioners arraigning them as

3

defendants 1 and 2 and also arraigning two more

defendants, for the relief of permanent injunction with

respect to the suit schedule property on 11.02.1999 in the

court of the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, (CCH

No.19) at Bangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

<the Trial Court=) in O.S.No.1175/1999.

2. The present petitioners as defendants 1 and 2

appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement,

issues were framed by the trial court in the said suit and the

matter was posted for plaintiffs9 evidence. However, due to

the reason of non-prosecution said suit came to be

dismissed for default on 24.09.2004. The plaintiffs by filing

miscellaneous petition No.762/2004 and the order passed in

the said miscellaneous petition dated 09.07.2010 got the

original suit restored on the file. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed

I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of

Civil Procedure Code on 09.03.2011. However, by

withdrawing the said I.A.No.2 on 04.03.2016 they filed

another similar I.A.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 of

4

Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to amend the

plaint by incorporation of paragraph No.6(a) in the plaint

and also addition of `B9 schedule to the suit schedule

property and addition of prayer 1(a) and 1(b) to the effect

of seeking the relief of mandatory injunction and delivery of

vacant possession of the `B9 schedule property. The said

application was seriously disputed by defendants 1 and 2.

However,

trial

court

by

its

impugned

order

dated

07.02.2017 allowed the said application with a cost of

Rs.1,000/- payable to the defendants. Challenging the said

order, the defendants 1 and 2 are before this Court through

this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his

arguments submitted that the conduct of the plaintiffs is

highly objectionable since from the year 1999 till date they

on one pretext or the other are stalling disposal of the suit

and by virtue of the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are

adding a prayer for a new relief and also a different and

new property which totally changes the nature of the suit.

5

However, the trial court without considering these aspects

has erroneously allowed the said I.A.No.6. In his support,

learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Judgment

in the case of REVAJEETU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS

VS

NARAYANASWAMY

AND

SONS

AND

OTHERS

reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 and submitted that the

principles laid down in the said case has not been followed

by the trial court. He further submitted that the trial court

also did not consider that the relief of declaration prayed for

was belated, which ought not to have been allowed to be

incorporated as an additional prayer in the plaint.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents in his

arguments though conceded the fact as narrated by the

plaintiff upto the stage of filing of I.A.No.6, however,

submitted that the proposed amendment would in no

manner either introduce a new case or changes the nature

of the suit already filed. Though, the suit is filed for bare

injunction

however

by

virtue

of

the

subsequent

development which has taken place during the pendency of

6

miscellaneous petition, the plaintiffs were constrained to file

the amendment application in order to secure a portion of

the suit schedule property which was unauthorisedly

interfered by the defendants. Thus, the proposed

amendment was very much warranted in the case and

would not cause any prejudice to the interest of the

defendants.

5. In Revajeetu case (supra) the Hon9ble Apex Court

has summed up the basic principles which are required to

be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting an

application for amendment. Those principles are enunciated

in paragraph No.67 of the Judgment which reads as below:

<67. On critically analyzing both the English and

Indian cases, some basic