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. 24284 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR GOWDA.G.N.

S/O G.R.NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PERSENTLY R/AT ‘F’ BLOCK, 1203, AJMERA GREEN, B.G.ROAD, KALEENA GRAHARA, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 076.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHUKAR.M.DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. ABDUL KUDDUS S/O LATE SHAIK MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/T NO 8, 1^ST BLOCK, 6^TH CROSS, SOMESHWARANAGAR, JAYANGARA, BANGALORE-560 011.

2. SRI. N.RAMACHANDRA S/O G.NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/T GOTTIGERE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 056.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH ADITHYA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.495/2007 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION DATED 13.09.2021 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/R1 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, IN O.S.NO.495/2007 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION IS 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 22.10.2021 in O.S.No.495/2007 passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity for two reasons. Firstly, he submits that the amendment that was sought for, changes the nature of the suit. Since the relief of possession was not sought for earlier, the relief could not be sought for at the belated stage. Secondly, learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC since this was an amendment post conclusion of the trial. Reliance in this behalf is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff on the other hand contends that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had initially filed a suit for declaration of ownership in respect of the suit schedule property. He submits that during the pendency of the suit and at the time of Covid Pandemic, taking advantage of the lock down, the petitioner/defendant No.1 took over possession of the suit schedule property. This led to respondent No.1/plaintiff to file an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Since the respondent No.1/plaintiff was dispossessed, an

1 (2022) 16 SCC 1

application for amendment of the pleadings was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, which came to be allowed.

3.1. So far as concerns the second aspect, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the cause of action to file the application for amendment only arose only when the respondent No.1/plaintiff was dispossessed and within a few months of the same, the application was filed. Thus, there was no question of the respondent No.1/plaintiff not being diligent.

4. The learned Trial Court has found that it is not disputed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been dispossessed and that the nature of the suit is not changed with seeking a relief of possession.

Thus, the application has been allowed.

5. Ordinarily, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC sets out that an amendment should not be allowed once the trial in the mat