SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 3428

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SMT. PREETHI SATISH – Appellant
Versus
SRI. M. NAGARAJ – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 25648 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. P. B. RAJU
For the Respondents: SRI. H. S. SACHIDANAND

The court can allow amendments to pleadings unless they change the fundamental nature of the suit, thus ensuring just adjudication.

Headnote:In this case, the High Court analyzed the refusal of the trial court to allow the plaintiff's amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to incorporate additional pleadings and prayers based on changed circumstances. The court held that the trial court's dismissal was inconsistent with established legal principles regarding amendments, as it fundamentally changed the nature of the suit. The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the amendment, directing that it shall not relate back to the date of the suit, addressing limitation at trial.

Result: The petition is hereby allowed.

Table of Content
1. court proceedings initiated for amendment application. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
2. amendments are evaluated based on necessity and their impact on case fundamentals. (Para 2)
3. petition results in the allowance of the amendment to the plaint. (Para 9)

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.5295/2020 on the file of the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.1/2022, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings, additional prayers and to insert schedules was dismissed 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 petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent-defendant for permanent injunction and for other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. Subsequent to the said suit having been contested by the respondents- defendants, during the course of plaintiff’s evidence, the petitioner – plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint as hereunder:

“APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE Code of Civil Procedure

That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit the Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the Plaintiff to amend the Plaint and incorporate the additional Pleadings/Prayer and Schedules as sought for below, it would be in the interest of justice and equity.

AMMENDMENT SOUGHT FOR:

At Page No.9, after Paragraph No.18, to add additional pleadings at Paragraph No.19, 20 & 21 as follows:-

19. The Plaintiff submits that in terms of the joint development agreement dated 31.10.2014 entered with the Defendant he was liable to commence and complete construction of the Apartment Building in 2 years from the date of sanction plan or handing over of the vacant possession whichever is earlier and the Plaintiffs have handed over possession in January 2015 and the Defendant has obtained sanction plan on 30.01.2015 and the Defendant has failed to complete the construction of the apartment building and hand over possession of the Plaintiff’s Ground Floor Apartment within two years i.e. on or before 31.01.2017 and hence the Plaintiff is entitled for monthly rents/damages from the said period i.e from 01.02.2017 till date at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month.

20. The Plaintiff submits that during the pendency of the suit it has come to the notice of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant has completed the construction and the interiors and he is in occupation of the First, Second Floors i.e Suit Schedule 'C' Property in June 2022 and till date he has not even bothered to pay balance sum of Rs.85,00,000/- payable to the Plaintiff in terms of the supplementary agreement dated 03.11.2014 and hand over the possession of the Ground Floor Apartment to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff by 01.02.2017 and hence the Defendant is liable to pay interest on the said amount at 12% from the said date and as the date it works out to Rs.58,65,000/- as on 31.10.2022 from 01.02.2017.

21. The Plaintiff submits that under the said circumstances the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.85,00,000/- + interest of Rs.58,65,000/- from 01.02.2017 till 31.10.2022 i.e totally Rs.1,43,65,000/- which the Defendant has failed to do so and hence the Plaintiff has a charge on the First and Second Floors of the buildings that has been allotted and fallen to the share of the Defendant i.e Suit Schedule 'C' Property under the joint Development Agreement dated 31.10.2014 and if the Defendant fails to pay the said amount with interest for the delayed period the Plaintiff is entitled to bring the First and Second Floors i.e Suit Schedule 'C' Property for sale to recover the said amount

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top