Plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint at cross-examination stage to allege non-payment of sale consideration was due to a road problem. The High Court held the amendment unnecessary and belated, would prolong trial by reopening evidence, and dismissed the writ petition.
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 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35214 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR P1
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. SANTHOSH SHETTY, ADVOCCATE P2)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN AROA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4;
SRI. PRABHU RAO C.B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.4129/2002 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-25) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDTIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BENGALURUE (ANNEXURE-F) AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO AMEND THE PLAINT BY ALLOWING I.A.NO.20 (ANNEXURE-E) FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.4129/2002 pending trial before the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this petition challenging an order dated 10.07.2018 by which, an application (I.A.No.20) filed by them under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') was rejected.
following reliefs:-
2 by filing separate written statements.
of DW.3, the plaintiffs filed an application (I.A.No.20) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to incorporate the following:-
"PARA 3(a): The plaintiffs submit that after execution of the sale deed, when the plaintiffs have demanded for the balance sale consideration amount, the 2nd defendant started telling that some close associate of the 1st defendant informed that there is a road problem and if there is no road problem they will make the payment. If there is road problem then the schedule property is of no use
NC: 2024:KHC:45420 WP No. 35214 of 2018
to them. The plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs came to know about the first defendant from 2nd defendant and whenever the plaintiffs asked the 2nd defendant to make the payment he used to tell that there is a road problem, but he had not gave any authentic documents to show that there is a road problem and whenever the plaintiffs asked the 2nd defendant he used to inform the plaintiffs that he is searching for the said document, but he had not able to secure it. The plaintiffs submits that since the 2nd defendant had alleged there is a road problem, the plaintiffs tried their best to secure the authenticated information, but they failed to do so. The plaintiffs submits that whenever the plaintiffs demanded for balance sale consideration amount, the second defendant used to tell the plaintiffs that why you are bothering about money when you are in possession of the schedule property and when we are going to put up construction any how we have to come to you.
3(b) The plaintiffs submits that, the actual sale consideration amount prevailing in the surrounding area of the schedule property is much more than that of the sale consideration amount agreed to be paid by the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs submits that the 2nd defendant who is very known the family of the plaintiffs informed and promised that usually he used to give one flat free of
cost to the land owners after construction of the apartment building and accordingly he assured that he will give one flat to the plaintiffs after construction of the apartment building in the schedule property free of cost. The plaintiffs submits that, however, the defendants 1 and 2 neither paid the agreed sale consideration nor the consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed and they have not at all keep up with their assurances given at the time of execution of the sale deed."
NC: 2024:KHC:45420 WP No. 35214 of 2018
the nature of the suit nor the cause of action and no admission in favour of the defendants was sought to be withdrawn. He contends that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, if the application was allowed. He contends that what is sought to be brought on record by way of amendment, is a fact which was admitted by DW.3. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court must have considered the application leniently.
NC: 2024:KHC:45420 WP No. 35214 of 2018
sale consideration that was agreed upon was a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and not Rs.7,00,000/- as alleged.
amendment does not change the nature of the suit or cause of action but amendment if allowed, would definitely result in reopening the case for adducing evidence and thereby protract the suit. In that view of the matter, since the plaintiffs have not exercised caution at the time of filing the suit but have woken up at the time of cross-examination of DW.3 to seek for an amendment, they are not entitled to seek the said relief.
dismissed .
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53
1 issue framed by the court
Was the trial court justified in rejecting the plaintiffs' belated application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint to plead non-payment due to a 'road problem'?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Papanna s/o Late Muniswamy
Muniyellappa s/o Late Muniswamy
K. Tyagaraju s/o K. Raghava Raju
H. Vishwanath s/o Venkataramanappa
Jayamma
Muniyamma
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
