IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO. 10326 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI THIMMAIAH K T

S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA R/AT NO.66, RANADHEERA

KANTEERAVA ROAD

KEMPEGOWDANAGAR

LAKSHMIPURAM

BANGALORE - 560 019.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI PAVAN H.K, ADV.)

AND:

1. SMT. YASHODHAMMA

WO MR. MARISWAMY

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

Digitally signed

2. MR. PUTTASWAMY

by NANDINI M

S S/O LATE LINGAIAH

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

Location:

HIGH COURT

OF

3. SMT. LAKSHMI @ BANGARAMMA

KARNATAKA

W/O PUTTASWAMY

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

ALL ARE R/AT JAVAREGOWDA NAGAR

HOSKEREHALLI VILLAGE

UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, R.R. NAGAR

BANGALORE - 560 098.

…RESPONDENTS

(R-1, R-2 & R-3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHSET ASIDE THE

ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 10.7.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-74) IN O.S.NO.26696/2013.

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. Plaintiff 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 17.06.2020 passed on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.26696/2013 by the Court of LXXIII Addl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondents who are served in the matter, have remained unrepresented before this Court.

3. Suit in O.S.No.26696/2013 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

4. The contesting defendants have filed written statement and have opposed the suit claim.

5. Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff even before the trial had commenced in the suit.

6. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections.

7. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

8. In the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff has prayed to permit him to incorporate paragraph 3A immediately after paragraph 3 and also amend paragraph 4 of the plaint at line 6 by incorporating the words 'represented by his power of attorney', after the word 'herein'.

9. The proposed amendment does not in any way change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. The Trial Court, however, has rejected the application on the ground that the proposed amendment is not necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

10. It is trite that the court while considering an application for amendment of pleadings is not supposed to delve into the merits of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held that the court should be liberal while considering the application for amendment and hyper technical approach should be avoided. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to amend the plaint. Accordingly, the following order:

11. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.06.2020 passed on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.26696/2013 by the Court of LXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. The prayer made in the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, is granted.

Sd/-

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

JUDGE KK