Amendments to pleadings are permitted for determining the real question in controversy and preventing injustice, even post-trial.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.50/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed on I.A.No.XXVI filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC , whereby the said application filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings and additional relief of mandatory injunction was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and other defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, both parties went to trial and at the stage of arguments, the plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint, which was contested by the petitioner – defendant No.1 and culminated in the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 allowing IA No.26 as hereunder.

“ORDER ON I.A.NO.XXVI

The plaintiffs filed this IA under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC and praying to permit them to amend the plaint.

2. Under the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are intending to insert Para 8(A) and (B) in Page No.4 of their plaint and to seek the relief of mandatory injunction.

3. In the affidavit accompanying to the IA, the plaintiff No.1 Shanmukhappa has almost reiterated the original plaint allegations. Further, he stated that, this Court has granted ad interim exparte injunction in favour of the plaintiffs on 22.01.2018 and despite of such injunction order, the defendants have tried to fence the panchayath road existing towards the northern side of the suit property and therefore, he has complained to the concerned police on 10.03.2018. He further stated that, on 15.03.2018 the defendants have succeeded in completing the fencing of the disputed road and closed the access to the said road. That, the plaintiffs approached the Tahasildar, Bhadravathi by complaining the said illegal act of the defendant No.1 to 7 and due to the intervention of the Tahasildar, the defendants have removed the fence. He further alleged that, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have cleared the branches of the tree which covered their house and by misusing the said situation, the defendants have made a false complaint and again fenced the disputed road by denying access to the plaintiffs. He stated that, the said subsequent events has necessitated the plaintiffs to seek the relief of mandatory injunction and to plead those subsequent events in the plaint by way of amendment. Therefore, he prays to allow the amendment.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants filed his objection and praying to dismiss the IA as not maintainable. He contending that, the plaintiffs have not filed any documents to support their allegations and falsely making such allegation without any proof. He contending that, the plaintiffs have not pleaded the exact dates of the subsequent events and filed this belated application at the fag end of the proceedings. That, the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and sought only to fulfill the lacuna in the case of the plaintiffs. That, the plaintiffs intending to seek the relief of mandatory injunction without seeking the declaration and therefore, the proposed amendment is not maintainable. Accordingly, the defendants prays to dismiss the IA.

5. In view of the rival contentions of both the parties, the following points are arise for my consideration:

POINTS

1. Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties?

2. Whether the plaintiffs could not have raised proposed ame