Allowed¶¶50

Mr Richard Hilary Quardras v. Smt Jagadish Maroli

CPC – Amendment of plaint (Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151)

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2025WP/1059/2020

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), W.P. No.1059/2020 (GM-CPC), decided 11.07.2025, Vijaykumar A. Patil J.: amendment of plaint, Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC, OS.No.224/2011 Mangaluru; rejection of IA.No.17 (title-facts amendment) set aside in view of subsequent order in WP.No.46984/2014 (28.02.2022) restoring relief of declaration; amendment aids declaration, alters neither parties' stand nor scheme of suit; amended plaint within 2 weeks; Article 227; injunction-cum-declaration suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.11.2019 passed on IA.No.17 in OS.No.224/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada set aside; IA.No.17 consequently allowed; petitioner directed to file the amended plaint within 2 weeks; no orders as to costs. ¶¶50

Mr Richard Hilary Quardras Vs Smt Jagadish Maroli — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's rejection of IA.No.17 (plaint amendment narrating facts relating to title) should be sustained, or whether the writ petition should be allowed taking note of the subsequent event that this Court, in WP.No.46984/2014 (order dated 28.02.2022), permitted the additional relief of declaration in OS.No.224/2011.

¶¶44

Court's answer

No fault is found with the reasoning adopted by the trial Court (that the suit was then only for injunction); nevertheless the writ petition deserves to be allowed taking note of the subsequent event that the petitioner's application for the additional relief of declaration was subsequently allowed by this Court in WP.No.46984/2014.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

The amendment sought in IA.No.17 would aid the relief of declaration sought by the petitioner which was later allowed by this Court in WP.No.46984/2014.

¶¶48

Key takeaways

The proposed amendment is a narration of facts relating to title and the conduct of the parties; it would neither alter the stand of the parties nor the scheme of the suit.ratio¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CPC — Amendment of plaint (Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151) — Writ under Article 227 against rejection of IA.No.17 in OS.No.224/2011 (Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru) — Suit initially for permanent injunction and declaration; declaration given up by memo for want of court fee — Earlier attempt (IA.No.9) to restore declaration relief rejected on 01.09.2014, but reversal obtained in WP.No.46984/2014 (order dated 28.02.2022), whereby IA.No.9 was allowed (cost Rs.10,000/-) and the suit became one for injunction and declaration — IA.No.17, filed while WP.No.46984/2014 was pending, seeking narration of facts relating to title and conduct of parties, was rejected on 20.11.2019 on the footing that the suit was then only for injunction — High Court found no fault with the trial Court's contemporaneous reasoning but allowed the writ petition on account of the subsequent event: the amendment sought would aid the now-permitted relief of declaration and would neither alter the parties' stands nor the scheme of the suit — Impugned order set aside; IA.No.17 allowed; amended plaint to be filed within 2 weeks; no costs — Petition abated against deceased R1; R2/R3 served, unrepresented.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25542 W.P. No.1059/2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1059/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶8

MR. RICHARD HILARY QUARDRAS S/O LATE A.L. QUARDRAS AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT D NO.2-8-667 QUARDRAS COMPOUND BEJAI, KAPIKAD MANGALURU-575002.

¶9

(BY SRI. SACHIN K. NAIK, ADV., FOR SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV.,)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. JAGADISH MAROLI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

¶13

SMT. KASTURI W/O LATE DAYANANDA MAROLI MAJOR, NEAR S.N. TEMPLE MAROLI VILLAGE AND POST MANGALURU-575002.

¶14

MR. PRAKASH .K S/O KUNHI KANNAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT MADHAVI NILAYA BHAJANAMANDIRA, BEJAI MANGALURU-575002.

¶15

SMT. JAINABHI W/O K. MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT RAMLAN COMPOUND

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:25542 W.P. No.1059/2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KOORNADKA HOUSE KEMMINJE VILLAGE PUTTUR-574201.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED V/O/DTD:03.07.2025 PETITION STANDS ABATED AGAINST R1)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 20.11.2019 MADE ON I.A.NO.17 IN O.S.NO.224/2011 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K. & ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging the Order dated 20.11.2019 passed on IA No.17 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in OS No.224/2011 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada.

¶27

Sri.Sachin K. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed suit for permanent injunction and declaration. Later, the petitioner could not pay

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:25542 W.P. No.1059/2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the court fee, on the relief of declaration. Hence, the said relief was given up and the suit remains for the relief of permanent injunction. It is submitted that, the petitioner filed further application to seek amendment to incorporate the relief of declaration, which came to be rejected by the trial Court and the same was assailed in WP.No.46984/2014. The said writ petition came to be allowed. Consequently, IA.No.9 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking the amendment of the pleading and additional prayer for declaration was also allowed. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed another application during the pendency of the WP.No.46984/2014 in IA .No.17 to bring certain factual matrix on record relating to title. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the suit is only for injunction and the relief of declaration is given up by the petitioner/plaintiff and rejected the application. It is further submitted that in view of the subsequent order of this Court in WP.No.46984/2014, this writ petition is also required to be allowed as the proposed amendment, though it was filed, when the suit was filed only for injunction, but later in point, the suit came to be amended by seeking additional relief of declaration. These proposed amendments are

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:25542 W.P. No.1059/2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

necessary for the complete adjudication of the suit. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would aid the relief of declaration sought in the plaint. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶36

Notice is served on the other side. There is no

¶37

representation.

¶38

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and material available on record.

¶39

The pleading and material on record indicate that the petitioner has filed OS.No.224/2011 initially for a relief of permanent injunction as well as declaration. Later, the relief of declaration was given up by filing a memo as it is contended that the petitioner could not pay the court fees for the same relief. The said memo was allowed and the suit was restricted only to the relief of permanent injunction. It is contended that later the petitioner filed an application in IA.No.9 under Order

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:25542 W.P. No.1059/2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the relief of declaration in the suit which came to be rejected vide order dated 01.09.2014. As against the said order, the petitioner filed WP.No.46984/2014 and this Court allowed the writ petition in WP.No.46984/2014 vide order dated 28.02.2022. In the aforesaid order, this Court set aside the order dated 01.09.2014 passed on IA.No.9 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC. Consequently, IA.No.9 was allowed on the cost of Rs.10,000/-. In effect, the suit is for relief of permanent injunction and declaration. During the pendency of WP.No.46984/2014, the petitioner had filed another application in IA.No.17 seeking for amendment of the plaint. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 on the premise that the suit is only for injunction and the proposed amendment is with regard to the title over the suit schedule property.

¶44

I do not find any reason to find fault with the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. However, the writ petition deserves to be allowed taking note of the subsequent events

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:25542 W.P. No.1059/2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

i.e., the petitioner's application filed for seeking additional relief of declaration was subsequently allowed by this Court in WP.No.46984/2014 vide order dated 28.02.2022. The nature of the amendment sought in this subject application would aid the relief of declaration sought by the petitioner which was later allowed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The proposed amendment is the narration of facts relating to title and the conduct of the parties. The aforesaid amendment would neither alter the stand of the parties, nor alter the scheme of the suit. Hence, in my considered view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶51

ii) The impugned order dated 20.11.2019

¶52

passed on IA.No.17 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC in OS.No.224/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada is hereby set aside.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:25542 W.P. No.1059/2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

iii) Consequently, IA.No.17 filed by the

¶57

petitioner is allowed.

¶58

iii) The petitioner shall file the amended

¶59