Dismissed¶69

H. Manjunath v. Godhavari Petkar

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2025WP/14884/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; amendment of written statement; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; specific performance; counter claim; limitation; belated application; agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985; performance by 19.06.1986; after commencement of trial; framing of issues; Article 227 Constitution of India; certiorari; Karnataka High Court; Civil Judge & JMFC Soraba; O.S.No.86/2010; O.S.No.83/2010; declaration and permanent injunction; permissive possession; Abdul Sattar v. M.Khalid; Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri; Basavaraj v. Indira.

What did the court decide?

A belated application seeking to change the prayer in the plaint is impermissible where the plaintiff had knowledge of the agreement of sale and had referred to it in the plaint. ¶59

H. Manjunath Vs Godhavari Petkar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly rejected I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.86/2010 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to change the prayer to specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985, on the ground that the amendment is barred by limitation. +1 more

¶59

Court's answer

A belated application seeking to change the prayer in the plaint is impermissible where the plaintiff had knowledge of the agreement of sale and had referred to it in the plaint.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

The proposed amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.86/2010 is barred by limitation; the trial Court rightly rejected I.A.No.6 and this Court finds no error in its findings.

¶62

Key takeaways

The proposed amendment of the written statement in O.S.No.83/2010 raising a counter claim is beyond the period of limitation; the trial Court rightly rejected it.ratio¶63
The applications for amendment of the written statement raising a counter claim were filed after the commencement of trial; as no counter claim can be entertained after framing of issues (per this Court in Abdul Sattar v. M.Khalid, considering Ashok Kumar Kalra), the petitions are liable to be rejected on that ground also.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), by oral order dated 15 July 2025 in W.P.No.14884/2019 C/W W.P.No.9890/2017 (under Article 227 of the Constitution of India), rejected both writ petitions challenging orders of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Soraba rejecting applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. (i) In O.S.No.86/2010 (suit for declaration and permanent injunction), the plaintiff's belated application to amend the plaint to seek specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985 was held impermissible and barred by limitation: the plaintiff had knowledge of the agreement and had referred to it in the plaint, and the application was filed after more than 16 years of the suit and more than 31 years from the agreement; no error was found in the trial Court's rejection. (ii) In O.S.No.83/2010 (suit for injunction), the defendant's application to amend the written statement to raise a counter claim based on the same agreement was held beyond the period of limitation; additionally, following this Court's decision in Abdul Sattar v. M.Khalid (considering Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri, (2020) 2 SCC 394), no counter claim can be entertained after framing of issues, and the applications having been filed after commencement of trial, the petitions were liable to be rejected on that ground also. Both petitions were rejected as devoid of merits.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14884/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.9890/2017 (GM-CPC)

¶8

IN W.P. No.14884/2019:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶11

H. MANJUNATH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKAPETE SORABA TOWN-577429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADV., FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.,)

¶14

AND:

¶15

GODHAVARI PETKAR W/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶16

MAHESH PETKAR S/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶17

KESAVMURTHY PETKAR S/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶18

DATTATREYA PETKAR S/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

R/O NO.16, 2ND MAIN TELECOM LAYOUT NEAR MAHESH BHUPATHI PLAYGROUND BENGALURU-560097.

¶22

RESPONDENTS ARE PRESENTLY: RESIDING AT NO.38 RAGHAVENDRA BADAVANE SORABA TOWN-577429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. HEMALATA MAHISHI, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.14.01.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SORABA ON I.A.NO.6 IN DECLINING TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING TO AMEND THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.86/2010 PRODUCED AT ANNX-K TO THE W.P. ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION ALLOWING IA NO.6 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.86/2010 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN & ETC.

¶26

IN W.P. NO.9890/2017:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

H. MANJAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA @ BABANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS CLOTH MERCHANT RESIDENT OF CHIKKAPETH SORABA TOWN - 577 429 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADV., FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.,)

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AND:

¶34

GODHAVARI PETKAR W/O KRISHNA MOORTHY PETKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.38 RAGHAVENDRA BADAVANE SORABA TOWN - 577 429 SHIVAMOGGA - DISTRICT.

¶35

...RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SMT. HEMALATA MAHISHI, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 16.12.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SORABA ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO.83/2010 DECLINING TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT PRODUCED AS ANNX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION. ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION ALLOWING I.A.NO.6 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.83/2010 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN & ETC.

¶38

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

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

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

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

W.P.No.14884/2019 is filed challenging the order dated 14.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.86/2010 by the Civil Judge, & JMFC, Soraba, (for short, ' the trial Court ') and W.P.No.9890/2017 is filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2016 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.83/2010 by the trial Court.

¶44

Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions submits that Sri.H.Manjunath, petitioner in W.P.No.14884/2019, filed a suit in O.S.No.86/2010 for the relief of declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction over the suit schedule property and in W.P.No.9890/2017, the respondent has filed O.S.No.83/2010 for the relief of injunction. It is submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has filed a written statement and thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 18.05.1985, which came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the amendment is time barred. It is further submitted that the issue with regard to the limitation is required to be gone into during the trial and the rejection of the application I.A.No.6 is bad in law. Hence, he seeks to allow the same.

¶48

It is also submitted that in the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.83/2010, the petitioner herein has filed the written statement and thereafter filed an application seeking for amendment of the written statement adding the relief of counter claim based on the agreement of sale and claims that he is in permissive possession over the suit schedule property. However, the trial Court without appreciating the fact that the counter claim filed by the petitioner is required to be gone into during trial and without appreciating the same, rejected the application for amendment of the written statement. Hence, he seeks to allow both the petitions by permitting the petitioner to raise the counter claim in O.S.No.83/2010 and also seeks permission to amend the plaint in O.S.No.86/2010.

¶49

Per contra, Smt.Hemalata Mahishi, learned counsel

¶50

for the respondents in both the petitions supports the impugned orders of the trial Court and submits that the suit is

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

filed by the petitioner as well as respondent in the year 2010 and the application for amendment of the plaint is filed belatedly seeking the relief of specific performance in a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of his ownership, which is impermissible and the said application is barred by limitation as the proposed amendment is to enforce the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985 and as per the agreement, the performance was on or before 19.06.1986 and if the said date is also considered, it is more than thirty (30) years from the time stipulated in the agreement. The trial Court taking note of the same, has rejected the application for amendment of the plaint.

¶54

It is also submitted that the counter claim raised in the application seeking amendment of the written statement is also barred by limitation and contrary to the settled principles of law. The proposed counter claim would also change the nature of the suit as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira and others¹ . Hence, she seeks to dismiss both the petitions with exemplary costs as these petitions are nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶55

1 Civil Appeal No.2886/2012 disposed of on 29.02.2024

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available record. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced on both sides.

¶59

In W.P.No.14884/2019, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2010, has impugned the order of the trial Court, wherein it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.6 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for amendment of the plaint. The suit filed by the petitioner is for declaration and permanent injunction and by way of amendment the petitioner is seeking to change the prayer in the plaint to specific performance based on the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.86/2010 made a reference to the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985. When things stood thus, the filing of an application, belatedly, seeking to change the prayer in the plaint, is impermissible, as the petitioner has knowledge and made a reference of the said agreement of sale in the plaint. However, the proposed amendment is filed after more than 16 years of filing of the suit and more than 31 years

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

from the date of the agreement. The proposed amendment is barred by limitation as rightly held by the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶63

W.P.No.9890/2017, has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The said application also came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the application is filed belatedly and the proposed counter claim in the application is beyond the period of limitation. In the proposed counter claim also the petitioner is seeking to urge that the petitioner is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property again based on the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1985. Hence, the trial Court, taking note of the nature of amendment sought, has rightly come to conclusion that the proposed amendment is beyond the period of limitation and rejected the same.

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26087 W.P. No.14884/2019 C/W W.P. No.9890/2017

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

9. This Court in the case of Abdul Sattar v. M.Khalid

¶67

Since deceased Rep. by LRs and others² . by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Commander Surendra Agnihotri and Others³ has held that no counter claim can be entertained after framing of the issues. In the instant cases, the applications for proposed amendment of written statement raising counterclaim is filed after the commencement of trial, even on the said ground also the petitions are liable to be rejected.

¶68

For the aforementioned reasons, petitions are

¶69

devoid of merits and the same are accordingly, rejected .

¶70

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶71

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

¶72

2 W.P.No.2867/2020 disposed of on 12.06.2025

¶73

3 (2020) 2 SCC 394

H. Manjunath v. Godhavari Petkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. Manjunath v. Godhavari Petkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. K.M. Laxmana Vs Sri. A.R. Krishnappa

Sri Marlingegowda Vs Smt Lakshmi

Surya Nataraj Sharma Vs Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Munishamanna Vs Sri. Munishamaiah

Ismail Vs T N Girish

Smt Rudramma Vs T v Manjunath