Plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction sought amendment of plaint to add a prayer for declaration of title after trial commenced. The High Court set aside the Trial Court's rejection, allowing amendment without relation back to the suit date, leaving limitation open, and directing expeditious disposal.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:11723 WP No. 1808 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1808 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNAPPA DEAD BY LRS
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:11723 WP No. 1808 of 2024
R-4 AND 5 ARE R/AT CHOLAGATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563102.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
ALL ARE R/AT MAGERI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK 563 114.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.S. RAVI., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATA REDDY.CM.,ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2023, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR, IN OS NO. 480/2015, PASSED ON IA-14, UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, FOR AMEND THE PLAINT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2023, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JFMC AT KOLAR, IN OS NO. 480/2015, PASSED ON IA14, UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, FOR AMEND THE PLAINT, BY ALLOWING THE IA-14 IN ITS ENTIRETY, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.480/2015 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kolar is directed against the impugned order dated 25.10.2023 whereby the application I.A.No.14 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional prayer for declaration and corresponding pleadings in this regard was rejected by the Trial Court.
application, aggrieved by which the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present petition.
application. In the instance case, it is an undisputed fact that the suit was filed in the year 2015 and application was filed on 08.06.2023 and consequently, rather than dismissing the application as barred by limitation, the proper course of action would be to allow the application and permit the amendment by directing the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from 08.06.2023, from the date on which the application was filed and by leaving the question of limitation to be decided along with other issues in the suit.
contentions of the parties and on this ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 25.10.2023 in O.S.No.480/2015 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kolar, is hereby set aside.
(iii) I.A.No.14, stands allowed subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing the application on 08.06.2023.
NC: 2024:KHC:11723 WP No. 1808 of 2024
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to file additional written statement and take up all contentions including the defence of limitation.
(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the limitation, are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Having regard to the long pendency between the parties which commenced in the year 1971, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law on or before 20.12.2024.
SD/JUDGE
DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11.1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add a declaration prayer on grounds of limitation, delay and lack of diligence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sampath Kumar v Ayyakannu and Ors.Relied on¶4
AIR 2002 SC 3369 · Who else cites this
L.C. Hanumanthappa v H.B. ShivakumarRelied on¶4
(2016) 1 SCC 332 · Who else cites this
Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors.Relied on¶4
AIR 2022 SC 4256 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & OrsRelied on¶5
AIR 2006 SC 1647 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishnappa dead by LRS (Ashwathamma, Nagaveni, Savitha, Raghavendra, Ashwini)
Smt Thimmakka
Lakshmamma
Smt Padma
Sri Nagaraj alis Shankar
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
