IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 50624 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. P.D. NALINAKSHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O H.T. VENKATESH R/AT NO.2283/1, IN SY. NO.49/2 NEXT TO GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL RING ROAD, HINKAL, MYSORE - 570 017.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI M.R. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

1. SRI A. PAPANNA S/O LATE ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS EX-PANCHAYAT CHAIRMAN HINKAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI Digitally MYSORE TALUK signed by NANDINI M S MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 017.

Location:

HIGH COUR T

2. SRI ANDANI GOWDA OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O. MASTI GOWDA R/O. HINKAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE - 570 017. 3. SRI H.C. RAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O. SRI. CHANNE GOWDA R/AT NO. 816, BEHIND CHALLENGER BAR HINKAL VILLAGE MYSORE TALUK MYSORE - 570 017.

4. SRI NEELAKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. LATE MALLAPPA R/O. HINKAL VILLAGE MARIGUDI BEEDI MYSORE TALUK MYSORE - 570 017.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. ANANDA, ADV., FOR R-1;

R-2 & R-3 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;

V/O DTD 06.07.2021, NOTICE TO R-4 H/S)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2019 PASSED IN I.A.NO.12 FILED BY THE R-1/PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON THE FILE OF O.S.NO.521/2006 PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC (JR DN) AT MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. Defendant no.4 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 09.08.2019 passed on IA.no.12 filed on behalf of respondent no.1/plaintiff in O.S.No.521/2006, by the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Respondent no.1 herein has filed O.S.No.521/2006 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 27.09.1991.

4. Initially, only respondent no.2 herein was arrayed as defendant in the said suit. Subsequently, applications were filed to implead the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property from defendant no.1, and defendant nos.2 to 4 were impleaded in O.S.No.521/2006.

5. IA.no.12 was filed in O.S.No.521/2006 on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating paragraph no.10(a) immediately after paragraph no.10 and also to incorporate additional prayer no.1(a) immediately after prayer no.1. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court by the order impugned, has allowed IA.no.12 with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant no.4 is before this Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that defendant no.4 was impleaded in O.S.No.521/2006 in the year 2012. Thereafter, defendant nos.2 to 4 have filed written statement in the month of June 2012 itself. After the trial had commenced in the suit, IA.no.12 is filed seeking to amend the plaint. In view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the application could not have been allowed by the Trial Court. The application was not only belated, but the material on record would go to show that due diligence has not been proved by the plaintiff. He also submits that the proposed prayer is barred by limitation, and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in allowing IA.no.12. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY HATHISING SHAH VS GITABEN PARSHOTTAMDAS MUKHI - AIR 2019 SC

1119

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit,