- 1 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32441
WP No. 19982 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 19982 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MADHUSUDAN K
S/O CHANDU MARAKALTHI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/A ANUGRAHA KACHUR VILLAGE,
BARKUR POST
UDUPI TALUK-576201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K SHRIHARI, ADV.)
AND:
B MOHANDAS BAIRY
S/O LATE DR. B KRISHNA BAIRY,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/A BAIRY HOUSE KACHUR VILLAGE,
BARKUR POST
UDUPI TALUK- 576201.
…RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 05/07/2023 IN IA NO.12 IN OS NO.134/2013 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KUNDAPURA
FILED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND MAY
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Digitally signed by
A K CHANDRIKA
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32441
WP No. 19982 of 2023
The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.134/2013 on the
file of the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First
Class at Kundapura (for short, ‘Trial Court’) is before this
Court challenging order dated 05.07.2023 rejecting
I.A.No.12 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend
the plaint to include the prayer, directing the defendant to
execute sale deed of suit ‘A’ schedule property.
2.
Heard the learned counsel Sri.K.Srihari for
petitioner/plaintiff. Perused the writ petition papers.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff
would submit that petitioner/plaintiff filed suit with a
prayer for judgment and decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from alienating ‘A’ schedule
property to any third party or creating charge on ‘A’
schedule property in any manner. When the suit after
recoding evidence of plaintiff, was at the stage of cross-
examination
of
DW1,
the
petitioner/plaintiff
filed
- 3 -
application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the
plaint to include additional averment to say that plaintiff
has always been ready and willing to pay the balance sale
consideration and the defendant has failed to execute sale
deed by obtaining 11-E Sketch. Further, by way of
amendment, petitioner/plaintiff intends to add additional
prayer of specific performance to execute sale deed of suit
‘A’ schedule property in favour of plaintiff or his nominee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit
that defendant has admitted the contract between the
parties and also admitted to carryout all the necessary
documentation including 11-E Sketch. It is submitted that
at the time of filing plaint, proper prayer was not included.
Hence, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to file
present amendment application. It is also submitted that
petitioner/plaintiff
categorically
mentioned
about
the
agreement entered into between petitioner/plaintiff and
respondent/defendant and the defendant also categorically
admitted that he had entered into a sale agreement dated
28.06.2012 by receiving Rs.10,00,000/-. Since certain
- 4 -
documents were not available as on the date of filing to
support
the
prayer
for
specific
performance,
the
petitioner/plaintiff could not seek prayer for specific
performance. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff
would submit that amendment could be allowed to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings and further submits that no
prejudice would be caused to the respondent/defendant if
the amendment is allowed, since there is clear admission
by respondent/defendant of entering into sale agreement
with petitioner/plaintiff. Thus, he prays for allowing the
writ petition.
4.
On
hearing
the
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am
of the view that petitioner/plaintiff has not made out any
ground to interfere with impugned order for the following
reasons:
5.
Order
VI
Rule
17
of
CPC
provides
for
amendment of pleadings. In terms of the said provision
the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either
- 5 -
of the parties to alter or amend pleadings in such manner
and on such terms, as may be just and necessary for the
purpose of determining real questions in controversy
between the parties. But the proviso to Rule 17 puts
restriction on the Court, while considering amendment
application
after
commencement
of
trial.
If
the
amendment sought is after commencement of trial, unless
the Court is satisfied with regard to due diligence, that the
party
could
not
have
raised
the
matter
before
commencement of trial, the Court would not get
jurisdiction to allow such application.
6.
The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit with a prayer
for judgment and decree of permanent injunction to
restrain the defendant from alienating or creating charge
on the ‘A’ schedule property. The suit after plaintiff’s
evidence admittedly is at the stage of cross-examination
of DW1. The amendment to prayer column is to add a
direction to the defendant to execute sal