IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3976 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. G. MADHUSUDHANA S/O LATE H.S. GOPALAKRISHNACHAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KESARI NO.2241

5^TH CROSS BASAVESHWARA ROAD, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA ,ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR. K.S. RANGAPPA S/O LATE SUBBE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.227/9,BOGADI 2^ND STAGE, MYSURU -570 026 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY.,ADVOCATE)

by CHANDANA B M THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE Location: H igh Court of CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER Karnataka DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.X IN O.S.NO.80/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, MYSURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALOW I.A.NO.X FILED BY THE DEFENDANT AS PER ANNEXURE-E.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.80/2016 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru is directed against the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.X, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was rejected 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-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for permanent injunction, damages and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the petitioner-defendant, pursuant to which, the respondent-plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and at the stage of crossing cross-examination of DW-1, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking amendment of the written statement for the purpose of incorporating certain subsequent events that had occurred/transpired after institution of the suit which could not have been pleaded in the original written statement. The said application having been opposed by the respondent-plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence in not seeking amendment prior to commencement of trial and that the petitioner could have wanted to incorporate subsequent events by way of amendment, which is not permissible in law.

4. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the trial Court refusing amendment is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. It is also pertinent to note that it is inconceivable that when a party seeks to amend the pleadings by incorporating subsequent events, the same cannot be permitted on the ground that it should have been pleaded earlier especially when the said subsequent events obviously could not have been pleaded prior to occurrence of the said subsequent event. It is needless to state that subsequent events of fact that have occurred/transpired during the pendency of the suit would necessarily have to be permitted to be pleaded by a party who could not have pleaded the same prior to occurrence of the said events at the time of the filing the written statement. Further, since the respondent-plaintiff would have an opportunity not only to file rejoinder/reply to the amended written statement, but also cross examine the petitioner and his witnesses with reference to the proposed amendment, it canno