High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting an amendment application in a property suit. The amendment was allowed subject to no further evidence being led by the plaintiff regarding the new pleadings.
Impugned order dated 28.05.2024 setting aside application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed subject to condition of no further evidence.
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 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16514 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/O. HESARAHALLI VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572223.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
ALL ARE R/O HESARAHALLI,
NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572223
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.1, 7, 9 AND 11 AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GUBBI ON IA NO. 31 FILED BY PETITIONER NO. 1(a) UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S. NO.222/2012 ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY ALLOW I.A. NO.31 IN O.S. NO.222/2012 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff have filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi in O.S.No.222/2012, by which I.A.No.31 filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint was rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:42676 WP No. 16514 of 2024
"To continue in para 1(a):
One late Nanjaiah and his wife Siddamma had two daughters namely 1. Neelamam (plaintiff sister) and 2. Puttathayamma (plaintiff). One Shivanna married to Neelamma. Since they had no issues, said Shivanna married to Neelamma's sister Puttathayamma. The 2nd
wife Puttathayamma had two sons namely - H.S.Siddaramanna and H.S.Shadakshari.
In the beginning of para No.2: To include following pleadings:
After the death of Nanjaiah (father of plaintiff) and his wife Siddamma (Mother of plaintiff), the katha and pahani of the 'A' schedule properties made out in the name of plaintiff's sister Neelamma. Neelamma also died leaving behind her sister Puttathayamma (plaintiff). Even today the katha; pahani stands in the name of Neelamma."
who contended inter alia that the amendment sought for was not necessary to decide the suit. The Trial Court after considering the contentions, rejected the application in terms of the impugned order.
admission and therefore, notwithstanding the bar contained in Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the legal representatives of plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint to incorporate additional pleadings. He contends that the legal representatives of plaintiff had already stated about these facts in the chief-examination and therefore, even if the amendment is allowed, the legal representatives of plaintiff would not lead any further evidence. He contends that the amendment became necessary in order to support the evidence, lest it should not become a case of proof without pleadings. He therefore, prays that the application filed by the legal representatives plaintiff be allowed.
submitted that the suit essentially is regarding an easementary right which the plaintiff claims over the property of defendant Nos.1 and 2. He contends that amendment now sought to be incorporated does not in any way help the Court in deciding the issue between the parties. He therefore, contends that the application is designed to protract the proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC:42676 WP No. 16514 of 2024
judgment that may be passed in the suit, it is appropriate that the said amendment is allowed subject to condition mentioned herein below.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
HJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be filed to challenge the rejection of an application to amend plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
Whether the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit or is redundant given that the evidence was already adduced.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SIDDARAMANNA AND ANR
RANGAMMA AND OTHERS
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
