IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 42520 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

DR. T.S. UMA MURALIDHAR W/O A. MURULIDHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1297

14TH CROSS, GIRINAGARA

3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI. A. MURALIDHAR S/O LATE N. ANANTHCHAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1297

14TH CROSS, GIRINAGARA

3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI V.V. GUNJA, ADV.)

Di gitally signed by AND:

NANDINI M S Location: SRI R. LAKSHMAN HIGH S/O R.V. RAJU COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.50

50 FEET ROAD, GIRINAGARA

3RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 085.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M.V. ASHWINI, ADV., FOR SRI VEDA MURTHY M.V, ADV.)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOMODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH- 59) IN O.S.NO.8977/2015 ON I.A.NO.XI DATED 16.08.2019 AS PER ANENXURE-A AND THEREBY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AS IA.NO.XI AS PER ANNEXURE-K ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-59) IN O.S.NO.8977/2015 AND THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CARRY OUT THE AMENDMENTS.

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. This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant no.1 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.08.2019 passed on IA no.11 in O.S.No.8977/2015 by the Court of LVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Respondent herein had filed O.S.No.8977/2015 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, seeking for a decree of specific performance of the mortgage deed/rectification deed dated 27.12.2010 and 10.05.2011, and had also sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any charge over the suit schedule property.

4. The petitioner herein had filed written statement in the said suit on 04.02.2015. Subsequently, IA no.11 was filed by the petitioner to amend her written statement and the said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections.

5. The Trial Court, vide the order impugned, has rejected IA no.11 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, defendant is entitled to take inconsistent defences. He submits that proposed amendment do not change the cause of action, nor it is barred by limitation. Attempt is made by the defendant to explain the admission made in the written statement by seeking amendment. Liberal view has to be taken while considering an application seeking amendment since the principle for considering an application for amendment of plaint and written statement are different. He fairly submits that in the proposed amendment, he does not press the prayer to permit the petitioner to delete paragraph nos.5 & 6 of the written statement. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729, REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS NARAYANASWAMY AND SONS & ANOTHER - (2009)10 SCC 84, SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN VS MANOR KUMAR & ANR. - AIR 2009 SC 2544, BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS VS MANOHAR SINGH & ANOTHER - (2006)6 SCC 498, USHA BALASAHEB SWAMI & OTHERS VS KIRAN APPASO SWAMI &

OTHERS - (2007)5 SCC 602

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer made in the petition. She submits that the proposed amendment is likely to change the nature of the defence taken by the defendant in the original written statemen