Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting amendments to pleadings in pre-trial stages unless it causes injustice.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 19.03.2021 passed on IA No.2 in O.S.No.534/2018 by the learned V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, captioned as Annexure-H (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC by the petitioner/defendant No.9, has been dismissed with costs on the petitioner/defendant No.9.

2. None appears for the respondents No.1 to 4 despite service. The service to respondent No.5 to 12 has already been dispensed with by order dated 24.08.2021.

3. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 05.01.2026 after briefly hearing the counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.9, the Court has passed the following order :

"3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requests for some time to make his submissions on how the amendments sought by him in his application are relevant for the purposes of determining the actual controversy in the suit filed before the learned Trial Court by the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Brief note of contentions not exceeding three pages along with judgements, if any, in support be filed within a week."

4. Given the pendency of the matter for the last five years, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today.

5. The brief facts are that the suit for partition, injunction, and declaration was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The prayers in the plaint were for partition of 1/11^th share each, as well as declaration that registered gift deed and registered sale deed are not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs. An injunction was also sought in respect of the suit schedule property as set out in the plaint. The petitioner/defendant No.9 claims to be a subsequent purchaser of the entire suit schedule property. The petitioner/defendant No.9 appeared and contested the case before the learned Trial Court and filed a Written Statement.

6. The petitioner/defendant No.9 filed an application-IA No.2 seeking amendment of his Written Statement. By the said application, the petitioner/defendant No.9 has sought for insertion of paragraphs 4(bb) in the Written Statement. The reasons for the amendment, as set out by the petitioner/defendant No.9 in his application, is to bring on record the fact that late Venkataiah had not suffered brain stroke in the year 2009 but was in a sound state of mind. The petitioner/defendant No.9 states that he has searched "Facebook" and was able to get photographs of late Venkataiah. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the amendment application below:

"Paragraph 4(bb) - The defendant No.9 submits that Late Venkataiah was hale and healthy person, in sound disposing state of mind in the year 2012 to his knowledge. The said Venkataiah was very enthusiastic person used to mingle with all his family members. The defendant Nos.9 and 10 being the close family friends used to get invitations even for a small function celebrated in the house of plaintiffs. Accordingly, they were invited to 80^th birthday of Late Venkataiah. The above defendant No.9 was shocked after reading the averments made by the plaintiffs in para No.4 that Venkataiah had suffered brain stroke in the year 2006 and was not keeping sound and disposing state of mind as he was in close friendship with him till his end and he had attended 80^th birthday of him celebrated by all his children. This defendant No.9 has searched the Facebook and was able to get the photos of 80^th birthday of Late Venkataiah. The defendant No.9 submits that Late Venkataiah was in perfect sound disposing state of mind till his death much less in the year 2012. Further, defendant No.9 being close family friend, had even seen the ba