The instant writ petition has been filed by defendant no.6

in O.S.No.2317/2010 pending before XV Addl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated

15.04.2019 passed on the application filed under Order VI Rule

17 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

- 3 -

3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this petition

briefly narrated are, respondent no.6 herein had filed

O.S.No.2317/2010 before the Trial Court with a prayer to

declare the General Power of Attorney dated 18.09.2003 as null

and void and consequently the gift deed dated 04.08.2004

executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.3 to 5

and the sale deed dated executed by defendant nos.2 to 5 in

favour of defendant no.6 in respect of the suit schedule

property as bad in law and not binding on the plaintiff and also

had sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining

defendant no.6 from alienating or in any way encumbering the

suit schedule property.

4. In the said suit, defendant no.6 who is the purchaser

of the suit schedule property from the wife and children of the

plaintiff had filed his written statement and opposed the suit

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

PW-1, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section

151 CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the plaint

and to insert additional prayers to declare the plaintiff as the

absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to direct

defendant no.6 to quit and deliver vacant physical possession

- 4 -

of the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed

by defendant no.6 by filing objections. The Trial Court, vide the

order impugned, has allowed the said application and being

aggrieved by the same, defendant no.6 is before this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

application has been filed at a belated stage and the

amendment which has been sought would virtually change the

nature of the suit, and therefore, the Trial Court has erred in

allowing the application.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent

no.6 submits that the limitation for seeking the relief of

declaration and possession is 12 years, and therefore, the Trial

Court was justified in allowing the application. He also submits

that no hardship would be caused if the amendment is allowed,

on the other hand, if the amendment is not allowed, the

plaintiff would be put to hardship.

7. I have carefully heard the arguments on both sides

and also perused the material available on record.

- 5 -

8. Undisputedly, the suit was originally filed seeking a

declaration

that

the

general

power

of

attorney

dated

18.09.2003 is null and void, and consequently, the gift deed

dated 04.08.2004 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of

defendant nos.3 to 5 as well as the sale deed executed by

defendant nos.2 to 5 in favour of defendant no.6 are bad in law

and not binding on the plaintiff, and consequently, the relief of

permanent injunction as against defendant no.6 was also

sought in the suit. Except defendant no.6, the other defendants

have not filed any written statement opposing the claim of the

plaintiff. Defendant no.6 who is the purchaser of the suit

schedule property from the wife and children of the plaintiff has

filed his written statement and contested the suit.

9. When the suit was at the stage of recording the cross-

examination of PW-1, the application was filed by the plaintiff

seeking amendment of the plaint to insert certain facts and to

insert the prayers to declare the plaintiff as the owner of the

suit schedule property and also to direct defendant no.6 to

deliver vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property

to the plaintiff. The amendment sought in the application would

virtually change the nature of the suit and in addition to the

- 6 -

same, the application has been filed belatedly after the trial had

commenced. Under the circumstances, I am of the conside