IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.23970 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SHAHINA KANAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O LATE HAYATH KHAN, W/O RIZWAN PASHA, R/AT MUSLIM STREET, HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 127.

2. SMT. SHANWAZ KHANAM D/O LATE HAYATH KHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O NYMATH KHAN, R/AT DOOR NO.92, MAJID ROAD, VYASARAJAPURA VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 110.

3. SMT. SHENAZ KANAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O LATE HAYATH KHAN, W/O MOHAMED SAMEER HUSSAIAN, R/AT MUGUR VILLAGE, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 110. 4. SMT. SAMEERA KHANAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O MUJEER KHAN, W/O TABRIZ PASHA, R/AT DOOR NO. 165, EWS, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, KALYANAGIRI, MYSORE CITY-570 019.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETAJI.N.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RIYAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE HAYATH KHAN, R/AT DOOR NO. 2684, SHAHEE MAJID, 7^TH CROSS, PULAKESHI ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSORE -570 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGAMESH.R.B., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD 04.11.2022 PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT T NARASIPURA, MYSURU IN OS.147/2020 AT ANNEXURE-E ON I.A.NO.4.

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING-

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 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 04.11.2022 in O.S.No.147/2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura, Mysuru. By the Impugned Order, an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court giving a finding that unless the party seeking amendment shows due diligence for preferring the application belatedly, the application cannot be allowed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has raised only one contention before this Court. He submits that the amendment was a pre-trial amendment and that the trial had not commenced. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has wrongly invoked the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in this case and has stated that the petitioner/applicant was not diligent in filing the application.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs had in fact taken adjournments to lead their evidence. However, he does not dispute the fact that the trial had not commenced in the matter.

4. Ordinarily, the Courts are liberal in granting amendments provided that these amendments have not been sought after the trial had commenced. The settled law with respect to applications for amendment of pleadings is that ordinarily amendments sought are to be allowed except where there is any change in the nature of the suit or the amendment would be barred by limitation.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615 while discussing amendments to pleadings held as follows:

“11. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case, let us consider the law relating to the amendments of pleadings.

11.1. The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 8 SCC 511^. it was held as under: “16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these a real so well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In

Pirgonda Hongonda