IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 9042 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. H.RAJANNA S/O LATE.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, YASHODANAGAR, JAKKUR PLANTATION, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 064.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. THIMMEGOWDA.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. NAGARAJ.N S/O. LATE. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, NAVYANAGAR, JAKKUR POST, BANGALORE-560 064.

2. SUSHEELA.H.DASAR D/O. HUCHHAPPA DASAR, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO. 146, 4^TH CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, YEHALANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-64.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

V/O DTD: 04/08/2021-NOTICE TO R2 IS WAIVED)

***

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2020, PASSED IN O.S.NO.1985/2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-35), AT BANGALORE, UNDER ANNEXURE -F BY ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

THIS WRIT 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

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 09.03.2020, passed on I.A.No.1/2019 in O.S.No. 1985/2015, by the learned XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the ”CPC”], filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been allowed.

2. On 08.01.2026, after hearing the parties, this Court passed the following directions:

“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 requests for an adjournment. His request is although not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, he submits that the matter does not have any merit. It is contended that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was allowed by which the petitioner/defendant No.2 was impleaded as a party. Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint, in view of the fact that new parties had been impleaded. The learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court examined the matter and found that the amendments are necessary for the purpose of adjudication as well as that since the trial of the matter has not commenced, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is not applicable. In addition, it was held by the Trial Court that the objections taken by the petitioner/defendant No.2 were all objections which could be taken in his defence and thus the application was allowed.

3. This Court has perused the Impugned Order. The challenges that have been raised by the petitioner/ defendant No.2 to the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC are available to be raised by him in its Written Statement or by way of other proceedings in law. These challenges by themselves will not be relevant for a rejection of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Prime facie, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 today submits that on the last date of hearing, all the contentions were not made. He submits that his primary challenge to the application for amendment is on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel submits that there was an earlier suit for injunction filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff and the title of the respondent No.1/plaintiff was challenged in the earlier suit as well, however, the respondent did not take steps qua the challenge and thus the application for amendment is barred by limitation. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that an earlier suit for injunction that was filed was claiming rights over the same subject matter of dispute and the identification