##PAGE1##

NC: 2026:KHC:6426

WP No. 17571 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT PETITION NO.17571 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI H.R. BHASKAR

S/O. H. RAMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

R/AT NO.29, RAMSUNAND

8^TH MAIN, JARAKBANDEKAVAL

VAISHNAVI LAYOUT

BENGALURU-560 097.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI J. NIXON

S/O. JAYANATHAN

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.56, 5TH CROSS

8TH MAIN, SBM COLONY

BRINDAVANANAGARA

MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054.

2. SRI M.C. VENKATESH MURTHY

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

S/O. LATE B. CHINNAPPA

RESIDING AT NO.24, DURGA LAYOUT

- 1 -

##PAGE2##

NC: 2026:KHC:6426

WP No. 17571 of 2022

HC-KAR

VIDYARANYAPURA

BENGALURU-97.

3. SMT. ANNAPURANADAYAL

W/O. K. DEENA DAYAL

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

R/AT NO.39, 5TH TEMPLE STREET

5TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU-560 003.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.08.2022, THE

ANNEXURES-F PASSED IN O.S.NO.3343/2012 PENDING ON

THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE LXIII

ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.NO.64) IN

SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REJECTION OF THE AMENDMENT

APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.1

AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER

SIMILAR RELIEFS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEM FIT TO

GRANT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

- 2 -

##PAGE3##

NC: 2026:KHC:6426

WP No. 17571 of 2022

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated

04.08.2022 in O.S.No.3343/2012 passed by the LXIII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru

City [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the

impugned order, an application filed by defendant No.1 under

Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of his written statement

was dismissed by the Trial Court with a finding that the

petitioner has failed to show that due diligence was exercised

prior to filing the amendment application.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1

submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity and

that he had already set out in his application that he had

exercised due diligence.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand,

contends that the Impugned Order has been passed in

accordance with law. Since the petitioner was unable to show

any due diligence in terms of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of

CPC, the application was dismissed by the Learned Trial Court.

- 3 -

##PAGE4##

NC: 2026:KHC:6426

WP No. 17571 of 2022

HC-KAR

4. The undisputed facts are that a suit was filed in the year

2012. Thereafter, the plaint was amended and pursuant to

which, the additional written statement was filed by the

petitioner/defendant No.1 on 12.01.2018. The evidence in this

matter commenced on 20.03.2021 and after the cross

examination of PW.1 was completed, an application was filed

on 07.04.2022 by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking

amendments.

5. The Learned Trial Court has examined the application

filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking an amendment

and found that there is no averment about the exercise of due

diligence. In addition, the learned Trial Court has found that

there is no pleading on how the amendment is necessary to

determine the real question in controversy and that the

petitioner/defendant No.1 has only filed the said application to

protract the litigation. Thus, the application was dismissed. The

relevant extract of the Impugned Order is set out below:

"11. The defendant No.1 has not explained that despite

due diligence he did not have knowledge of the facts now

sought to be introduced in the written statement by way

of amendment. The reason assigned by the

- 4 -

##PAGE5##

NC: 2026:KHC:6426

WP No. 17571 of 2022

HC-KAR

defendant No.1 that he reali

Click Here to Read the rest of this document