IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 28936 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S MYSORE TRADE LINKS LEDGER ACCOUNT, APMC YARD,

BANDIPALAYA, MYSURU - 570001,

REPRESENTED THROUGH

ITS PROPRIETOR ABDUL SATAR.

(PROPRITORSHIP CANNOT BE REGISTERED).

2. M/S MYSORE TRADE LINKS,

BIG BAZAR, LEDGER ACCOUNT BIG BAZAR,

CALICUT, KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED THROUGH

ITS PROPREITOR ABDUL SATAR.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI GIRIDHAR S V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

signed by C

HONNUR SAB M/S BAVA INDUSTRIES

GARGESHWARI MAIN ROAD,

Location:

HIGH COURT T NARSIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT,

OF REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

KARNATAKA SRI B MUTHAHIR IQBAL L,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

S/O B IQBAL AHMED, PARTNER,

(REGISTERED/UNREGISTERED IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN).

…RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 1014 OF

2016, CULMINATING IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE X ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE, DATED 29.03.2025 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1014 OF 2016 ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.11 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.11 IN ITS ENTIRETY VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order allowing the application seeking amendment of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit describing the plaintiff as a partnership firm. Evidence is also led. Later, amendment application is filed to amend the plaintiff's status as a proprietor.

4. The defendant filed objection to the said application. Objection is over-ruled and the application is allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that having described the plaintiff as the partnership firm and having produced the document which is said to be a resolution passed by the partners of the firm, the plaintiff cannot take a stand (by way of an amendment) that the plaintiff is not a partnership firm but a proprietary concern. It is urged that the application could not have been allowed at all.

6. Elaborating on his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners would also urge that this application in substance amounts to replacing the original plaintiff (partnership firm) with another (proprietary concern) and the suit is filed in 2016 and the application for amendment is filed in the year 2025, as such, the application which now allowed in terms of impugned order permits the plaintiff (proprietary concern) to prosecute the suit which is time barred as the cause of action arose in the year 2016 and amendment at this nature even if allowed should be construed as having been permitted on the date of application seeking amendment. 7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

8. The Court has also looked into the defense taken by the defendant in the written statement.

9. In the written statement, the defendant has not taken a stand that the plaintiff is a partnership firm. Now the plaintiff has sought an amendment to claim the status as a proprietary concern and not as a partnership firm which was pleaded earlier.

10. The question is whether this kind of amendment amounts to change of the original plaintiff to a new plaintiff.

11. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the amendment does not amount to replacement of original plaintiff by a party by a new party. Reason is that the plaint is signed by the person who now claims to be the proprietor. Earlier, the plaintiff signed the plaint as a partner of the partnership firm. The suit transaction based on which the claim is made remains the same. The cause of action remains t