IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.8631 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.

NARAYANREDDY

S/O VENKATREDDY

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

OCCUPATION:BUSINESS

2.

SRI. VENKATA SARAVAN KUMAR REDDY

S/O NARAYAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 2/145, J R PETA

ATMAKUR, SPSR, DISTRICT: NELLORE 3 524 322

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE

&PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

MOHAMMAD KHASIM JANE

@ MOHAMMAD KHASIM SAHEB

S/O LATE MOHAMMAD IMAM SAHIB

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

2.

MRS. K SHARFUNISSA

W/O MOHAMMAD KHASIM SAHEB

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

3.

MR. MOHAMMED MUSTAQ

S/O MOHAMMAD KHASIM SAHEB

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

2

4.

MOHAMMAD YUSUF

W/O MOHAMMAD KHASIM SAHEB

AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS

5.

MOHAMMAD THOFIA

S/O MOHAMMAD MUSTAQ

AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

6.

MISS SABHA

D/O MOHAMMAD MUSTAQ

AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY

FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT No.1

7.

MOHAMMAD SALEEM

S/O MOHAMMAD KHASIM

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

8.

MOHAMMAD MOINUDDIN

S/O MOHAMMAD KHASIM

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT 1731, SAMPIGE ROAD

MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 3 3.

... RESPONDENTS

(R-1 TO R-3 & R-7 TO R-8 SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD

SUFFICIENT; R-4 TO R-6 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY

NATURAL GUARDIAN R-1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE

IMPUGNED

ORDER

AT

ANNEXURE-G

DATED

30.01.2018 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE CCH NO.15

IN OS.NO.3571/2013 AND FURTHER THIS HON'BLE COURT

MAY BE PLEASE TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION IA NO.V

DATED 1.12.16 FILED IN OS NO.3571/13

3

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioners aggrieved by the order on

I.A.No.V

dated

30.1.2018

passed

in

O.S.No.3571/2013 by the VIII Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge (CCH 15) Bengaluru has filed this

petition.

2.

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this

petition are as under:

The

respondents

filed

a

suit

in

O.S.No.3571/2013

for

the

relief

of

perpetual

injunction. In the said suit, the respondents have filed

an application-I.A.II seeking for an order to temporary

injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners appeared

and filed written statement and also filed an

application in I.A.No.VIII for vacating the impugned

order granted by the Trial Court. In the said suit, the

4

respondents have also filed an application-IA No.V

seeking for amendment of the plaint. The said

application was opposed by the petitioners. The Trial

Court

after

hearing

the

parties

allowed

the

applications I.A.No.II filed by the respondents and

rejected the application-I.A.No.VIII filed by the

petitioners and allowed the application-I.A.No.V filed

by the respondents and permitted the respondents to

carry out amendment as prayed in the application.

The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed on

I.A.No.V has filed this writ petition.

3.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

Though notice was issued to the respondents, they

have remained absent.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation.

He further submits that the suit is one for permanent

5

injunction. If the proposed amendment is allowed, it

changes the nature of the case and the cause of

action. Hence, on these grounds the learned counsel

for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has

committed an error in passing the impugned order

and prays to allow the writ petition.

5.

Perused the records and considered the

submissions

made

by

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners.

6.

It is not in dispute that the respondents

have filed a suit in O.S.No.3571/2013 on 15.5.2010.

In the said plaint, the respondents have specifically

contended that petitioner No.1 agreed t