Plaintiff in an injunction suit sought post-trial amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add a relief of possession, which the Trial Court rejected for being belated and changing the suit's nature. The High Court upheld rejection, noting the plaintiff had already sold the property, 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 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 5974 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. T. NAGAPPA S/O THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT KARINJI KATTE, WARD NO.25, MUNESHWARA NAGARA, KOLAR-563133
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT PICHHA GUNTARA HALLI VILLAGE, BANGARAPETE TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA N., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
NC: 2024:KHC:10908 WP No. 5974 of 2021
19.03.2020 ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOLAR ON IA NO.VII IN O.S.NO.717/2015.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.717/2015 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging the order dated 19.03.2020 by which, an application (I.A.No.VII) filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, was rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:10908 WP No. 5974 of 2021
proceedings and that it changed the nature of the suit as well as the cause of action.
NC: 2024:KHC:10908 WP No. 5974 of 2021
above, the plaintiff has now attempted to amend the plaint by claiming relief of recovery of possession. He submits that this would change the nature of the suit as well as the cause of action and therefore, the Trial Court rightly refused to entertain the application filed by the plaintiff.
the suit for bare injunction at his instance, would not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint in an injunction suit could be amended after trial to seek recovery of possession.
Whether a plaintiff who sold the suit property during proceedings had subsisting interest to pursue the suit.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Nagappa
Seenappa
Manjunatha
Mahesh
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
