The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by respondents/defendants challenging an order allowing plaintiffs to amend their plaint to include details of a prior suit during final arguments. The Court held the amendment did not cause prejudice.
Writ petition rejected; impugned order allowing amendment to plaint stands unaffected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3195 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT NO.15, GOPALALPPA LAYOUT, NEAR SUNRISE SCHOOL, KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. SUMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:32260 WP No. 3195 of 2020
BOTH ARE R/AT KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANAKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 067.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. CHANDRAKALA R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. NARAYANA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:14.11.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (CCCH5) IN O.S.NO.732/2015 (ANNEXURE-A) ON THE IA FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC IN O.S.NO.732/2015 I.E., ANENXURE-E AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND UNJUST AND TO CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC IN O.S.NO.732/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners, defendants in O.S.No.732/2015, are before this Court challenging the order dated 14.11.2019 allowing the respondents/plaintiffs application for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, to add additional averment as para No.11(a).
NC: 2023:KHC:32260 WP No. 3195 of 2020
was decreed on 20.09.2018. The Trial Court under impugned order, allowed the said application for amendment permitting the respondents/plaintiffs to amend the plaint to add additional paragraph No.11(a).
dismissal of the application by allowing the writ petition. Learned senior counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai & Ors. vs. Padmalatha & Anr. reported in
2009 (2) SCC 409 in that regard.
and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioners/defendants have not made out a
case to interfere with impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
respondents/plaintiffs reads as follows:
"11(a) It is submitted that the husband of first defendant was the defendant No.11 in OS No.2075/11 and this defendants had contested above suit, the defendant No.1, 2, 3 were 11 a, b, c, in the said suit. And the suit was for the relief of partitioned and the same came to be decreed on 20/09/2018. The copy of written statement, judgment and decree dated 20/09/2018 is herewith produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court."
clear that the respondents/plaintiffs by way of amendment intends to include paragraph No. 11(a) to the plaint to bring on record with regard to O.S.No.2075/2011 (it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is O.S.No.2075/2005) and judgment and decree dated 20.09.2018. Adding of the above paragraph with regard to O.S.No.2075/2011 (2005) in any way would prejudice
the case of the petitioners/defendants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that if the
amendment sought would not prejudice the case of the other side, normally such amendment shall be allowed to minimize the litigation.
VS. K.K.MODI AND OTHERS ((2006) 4 SCC 385) , while considering an appeal arising out of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has observed that amendment to pleading should be liberally allowed since procedural obstacles ought not to
impede the dispensation of justice. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the earlier decisions has observed that object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case and should, consequentially allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
any way alters or changes the nature of the suit or cause of action. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected .
Sd/JUDGE
KA CT:SNN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order allowing amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the ground of delay and lack of due diligence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Gowramma and Ors.
Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Somasekhar
S.G. Pandit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
