IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.32404 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O LATE K PAPAYYA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO 310, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR., SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SARAVANA S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. B G MURALIDHAR S/O B P GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO 103, BRINDAVAN MODEL HOUSE STREET BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 Digitally signed by …RESPONDENT GAVRIBIDANUR (BY SRI.PRAKASH B.N.,ADVOCATE)

SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE COURT OF KARNATAKA CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASDIE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO. 6653/2022 PASSED BY THE C/c XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &

SESSIONS JUDGE,BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned senior counsel - Sri D.R. Ravishankar on behalf of learned counsel - Sri Saravana .S for petitioner as well as learned counsel - Sri Prakash B.N. for caveator/respondent.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement.

3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale. In the said proceedings, when the matter was set down for arguments of the defendant, an application came to be filed by the defendant seeking amendment of the written statement for insertion of paragraphs 8A, 8B, 8C, 10A and 10B in the written statement to clarify certain aspects.

5. The learned trial Judge after hearing learned counsels for both parties was not satisfied with the reasons provided by the defendant and rejected the application. The trial Court observed that in pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and the defendant was examined as DW.1 and power of attorney of defendant was examined as DW.2 and Ex.D1 was marked at the trial. However, at the fag end of the trial, when the matter was set down for arguments, the present application is filed. The objection of the plaintiff has been noted by the learned trial Judge and rejected the application.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant reiterating the grounds urged in the petition and so also the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application seeks to allow the petition and permit the defendant to amend the written statement.

7. Learned counsel for respondent seeks to sustain the impugned order passed by the trial Court and to dismiss the petition relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J. Samuel and others - Gattu Mahesh and others reported in (2012)2 SCC 300.

8. I have perused the affidavit accompanying the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement. In the affidavit, the defendant has narrated several aspects, more particularly in paragraphs 4,5 and 6, the defendant has assigned reasons for seeking amendment of the written statement and the same have not been considered by the trial Court.

9. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the trial Court has not assigned proper reasons for rejection of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to the material placed on record, this Court deems it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court an