IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 31618 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. R.M.PILLA REDDY (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS WHO ARE OTHER PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.3 AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT.13.06.2025)

2. SMT. GOWRAMMA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS WHO ARE OTHER PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.3 AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT.13.06.2025)

3. P.SATISH S/O. R.M.PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.

4. P.HARISH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. R.M.PILLA REDDY, RESIDING AT CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANIVANNAN.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. C.H.LAKSHMANKUMAR ALIAS C.H.LOHITH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O. P.HARISH, RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.

2. B.K.CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE KULLA REDDY, RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106.

3. SUNANDAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY, D/O. PILLA REDDY, RESIDING AT MUTHHANALLURU.P & VILLAGE, BOMMASANDRA VIA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 099.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

V/O DTD:08.07.2021, NOTICE TO R2 D/W;

R3-SERVED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.658 OF 2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.658 OF 2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 07.09.2018 on I.A.No.14 in O.S.No.658/2006 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Anekal (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, an application filed by the Respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been allowed.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that he restricts his challenge only to the order of the learned Trial Court allowing amendment to the plaint by adding paragraph No.8(a) in the application.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that the amendment which causes prejudice or injustice to the other side could not have been allowed. In addition, he contends that the amendment sought for in paragraph 8(a) is the additional prayer of declaration and that this prayer is barred by limitation. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeks to rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1 more particularly to paragraph No.71.2 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court Basavaraj v. Indira to submit that the amendments can be allowed at any stage if they are necessary for determining the controversy in issue unless they are causing prejudice or injustice to the other side. Thus, it is contended that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity.

4. A perusal of the Impugned Order reflects that after examining the fact that the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeks to add a prayer in the plaint to state that the Gift

2 (2024) 3 SCC 705

Deed dated 19.09.2003 is not binding on them, the respondent No.1/plaintiff is not ready to commence the trial and that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is dragging the matter on one pretext or the other.

5. As stated above, the Impugned Order has allowed the application for amendment subject to costs in a sum of Rs.3,000/-. The challenge raised by the petitioners / defendant Nos.1 and 2 is primarily on two grounds. Firstly,