Amendments to pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed to ensure justice and clarify real issues in a case, provided they do not cause injustice to others.

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.IX in OS No.611/2014 by the City Civil Judge at Bengaluru(CCH-15), defendant No.6 has preferred WP No. 47866/2019 and defendant No.3 has preferred WP No.40423/2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed OS No.611/2014 with the following prayers in respect of the suit schedule property.

"i) Grant Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, person/s claiming under them with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by plaintiff.

ii) To pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts of the case.

iii) Grant exemplary cost of the suit to meet the end of justice."

4. Defendants No.3 and 4 filed the written statement on 02.07.2014 and defendant No.6 filed the written statement on 05.12.2016. Issues were framed on 01.12.2015 and evidence was let in by the plaintiff on 03.08.2016. During the cross-examination of PW1, he has deposed as follows:

5. With the aforementioned deposition, the plaintiff on the ground that he came to know about new facts relating to the transactions regarding the suit schedule property, made an application to amend the plaint, wherein apart from the amendment of the pleadings in the plaint, the following prayers were sought to be inserted:

"(i) Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Registered sale deed dated 15.03.1996, Registered as Document No.15013/1995-96, registered before the Sub-Register, Kengeri, Bengaluru.

(ii) Declare that the judgment and decree dated 23.07.1998 passed in OS No.5831/1991, Vide Ex-D1 and D2 marked by the Defendants side on 17.12.2018 are not binding on the plaintiff.

(iii) To order for Mandatory Injunction to demolish the illegal construction of Building standing on the Suit schedule property.

(iv) To delivery the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.

and thereafter;

Prayer (i) and (ii) may be amended as prayer (v) and (vi)"

6. Defendants No.3,4 and 6 opposed the amendment to the plaint on the ground that the facts sought to be inserted in the plaint were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and reliance is placed on the written statement filed by defendants No.3 and 4, which reads as under:-

"10.It is respectfully submitted that Sri.Krishnappa, father of the defendant No.1 and 2 Subramanya, was the owner of certain lands in katriguppe Village. The defendant No.3 is wife, No.4 and 5 are sons and daughters of late Subrahmanya. The said late Sri. Krishnappa and Sri. K. Manjunath, 2^nd defendant are no more. During the lifetime of Sri. Krishnappa, he filed a suit in OS No.5832/1991 in the Court of the City Civil Judge against the persons who have illegally occupied the same, seeking declaration of his title and for possession of the said lands. The said suit was decreed and Sri. Krishnappa had filed Execution Petition in Ex.No.1558/1998 seeking possession of the same. In the said Execution Petition, settlements have taken place regarding major portion of the property and the Execution is pending regarding the some portion. It is submitted that without authority, the said lands were made into revenue sites and sold to several persons by some of the defendants in that suit filed by late Krishnappa. Several purchases have constructed buildings on the respective sites also. On enquiry, it is learnt that the plaintiff is making a claim against one of the sites where the purchaser has already