Defendants challenged the trial court's order allowing amendment of the plaint to insert registration particulars of a sale deed dated 02.06.1977 in favour of defendant No.3. The High Court held the amendment merely clarified pleadings and reliefs without changing the suit's nature 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 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6447 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT KARANALA VILLAGE TUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G A VISWANATHA REDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT KARANALA VILLAGE
NC: 2024:KHC:50903 WP No. 6447 of 2021
TUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 561 203.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. IRSHAD AHMED K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DODDABALLAPURA IN O.S.NO.20/2010 ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT VIDE ANNEXURE-A 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 defendant Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.20/2010 on the
file of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Doddaballapur, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 18.01.2010 by which an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C was allowed.
injunction to restrain the defendants from committing any acts of waste or damage.
that the plaintiffs did not seek for any relief against defendant No.3 and the suit was directed against the sale
deed dated 27.01.1979 in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, he contends that allowing the application at the belated stage of the proceedings is impermissible as it changed the nature of the suit and reliefs as well as cause of action. He contends that the plaintiffs had already marked the sale deed dated 02.06.1977, they had referred to particulars of the sale deed in the plaint and therefore it is wholly unnecessary to amend the plaint.
NC: 2024:KHC:50903 WP No. 6447 of 2021
No.3 to question the impugned order in an appeal against
the judgment that may be passed in the suit.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
RL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly permitted amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to insert registration particulars of a sale deed dated 02.06.1977, at arguments stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Narasimhaiah S/o Late Kenchappa
Sri K H Nagaraj S/o Late Hanumappa
Sri Lakshminarayana S/o K.H. Nagaraj
Sri Prakasha S/o K.H. Nagaraj
Sri Nataraja S/o K.H. Nagaraj
Sri Giriyappa S/o Late Doddanarasimhaiah
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
