The court permits amendments to pleadings post-trial commencement if necessary for justice, without altering the suit's nature.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 in O.S.No.2407/2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 1601.2025 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”) whereby the said application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners and other defendants for declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners-defendants, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and at the stage of cross examination of PW-1, the plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional prayers and corresponding pleadings. The said application having been opposed by the defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under:

“ORDER ON IA No.V

U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SEC 151 C.P.C

Present application u/o VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C is filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking permission to amend the plaint and add para.No.15 after para.No.14 of the plaint and Para No.(iii) after para.No.(ii) in the prayer column in the interest of justice and equity.

The proposed amendment sought for in para-15 after para -14 of the plaint:-

“The plaintiff submits that as already submitted that he is suffering from various diseases and undergone multiple operations and he is even now suffering from ill-health. Taking undue advantage of the above position, the 1^st defendant had also created document in order to play fraud against the plaintiff and raised bank loans etc, on the private property which is not subject matter of the suit, belonging to the plaintiff had tried to mortgage and raise loan in various Banks and Financial Institutions. In this behalf the plaintiff had issued notices to the financial institutions such as ICICI Bank, Can Fill Homes Ltd., etc. However, the plaintiff has been unnecessarily humiliated by the 1^st defendant in collusion with certain bank, in which the plaintiff has no role, but unnecessarily he had been implicated in C.C.No.19685/ 2007 as well as suit in O.S.No.1629/2012 on the files of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru. In complicated CBI Cases and undergone imprisonment also, but on enquiry the said allegations have been discharged against the plaintiff. The defendant taking undue advantage and he had encroached an extent of 465 feet East to West and x 135 feet North to South totally an extent of 62,775 square feet for the purpose of road to the apartments consisting of A, B, C, D, E and F in the property bearing Sy.No.191 of Kaggadasapura Village, C.V.Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru, the 1st defendant for the best reason known to him had changed the name of ‘EApartments’ to ‘F Apartment. The plaintiff is herewith producing the Rough Sketch of the Apartment along with extent of property encroached by the 1^st defendant for the identification of the encroachment made in ‘F’ Block, measuring 9,944 along with the encroachment for road as stated supra and purpose of road and other civic amenities. Other than, the one already handed over to the 1^st defendant. Thus, the 1^st defendant had encroached totally an extent of 62, 775 + 9944 square feet of Land belonging to the plaintiff. It is not out of place to submit that, the 1^st defendant had made all the aforesaid encroachment since there is a vast extent of land owned by the plaintiff measuring 1,15,750 square feet of land measuring about 2 Acres 23 guntas, in Sy.No.191 of Kaggadasapura Village. The 1st defendant had taken advantage of illness of the plaintiff and t