K Umapathi Vs Sri G Krishnan

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND PERMIT TO CARRY OUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS PER AMENDMENT APPLICATION I.E. I A NO 3/2022 FILED IN O.S.NO.9195/2015 BY QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 28.10.2022 PSSED ON I.A.NO.3 BY THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Plaintiff has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:54007 WP No. 23180 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

dated 28.10.2022 passed on I.A.No.3/2022 in O.S.No.9195/2015 by the Court of LII Additional City Civil

¶34

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

Suit in O.S.No.9195/2015 is filed before the Jurisdictional Civil Court, Bangalore by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants have filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of recording evidence of PW-1, I.A.No.3/2022 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of

¶37

CPC with a prayer to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating the proposed paragraph number 4(a) immediately after paragraph number 4 in the plaint.

¶38

The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection. The Trial Court vide order

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:54007 WP No. 23180 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

impugned has rejected I.A.No.3/2022. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court.

¶43

Petitioner has filed O.S.No.9195/2015 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. I.A.No.3/2022 is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating proposed paragraph number 4(a) immediately after paragraph number 4. The proposed paragraph number 4(a) reads as follows:

¶44

"4(a): The Plaintiff submits that, his Grandfather, Govind Reddy, expired during the year 1995 at Palleri Village, Wallajh Taluk, Velluru, Tamizh Nadu, the Plaintiff further submits that, during his Grandfather's Lifetime, an Agricultural Land in Sy.No.70/2, to the extent of 36 Cents and 70/5, to the extent of 28 Cents, both were purchased in the name of Plaintiff's Father, during the year 1968. The Plaintiff's Father purchased the said Agricultural Lands on 24/09/1968 from one Karthithandavamurthy Reddy S/o. Kariperumal Reddy, which was registered as Document No.1602/1968, in the Office of the Sub-registrar, Solinger, Vellore, Tamizh Nadu. The Plaintiff, further

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:54007 WP No. 23180 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

submits that, during the year 1974, Agricultural land bearing No.70/2, situated at Palleri Village, Wallajh Taluk, Tamizh Nadu, to the extent of 11 Cents and Sy.No. 70/8 to the extent of 22 Cents was purchased in the name of Plaintiff's Father, during the year 1974. The said Land was purchased by his father on 12/03/1974, from Sundareshan S/o. Egambarareddy and Others, which was registered as Document No.526 of 1974-75, in the Office of the Sub-registrar Solinger, Vellore Distt. The Plaintiff further submits that, his Grandfather, Govindaraju was the owner of Portion of the Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.49/2B, 68/2A, 3B and Sy No.70/2. The Plaintiff submits that his father purchased suit schedule Property in the name of the 1 Defendant in the year 1978, out of the income from the Agriculture Lands and from the Consideration Amount of 22,500/- by selling the residential site formed in Sy.No.22/3 of Shivanahalli Village in favor of Smt. Lakshmamma on 5/12/1977."

¶49

5. From a reading of the proposed paragraph, it is

¶50

apparent that plaintiff intends to bring on record some additional facts in the plaint. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is not a complete bar to consider application filed under

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:54007 WP No. 23180 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, after the trial has commenced in the suit.

¶55

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS VS. K.K. MODI AND OTHERS - (2006) 4 SCC 385 has observed that the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in amendment and it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment that ought to be incorporated by way of amendment or ought to be judged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.

¶56

In the case of LIFE INSURANCE

¶57

CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022) SCC OnLine SC

¶58

1128, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court should be liberal while considering application seeking amendment and hyper technical approach by the Court

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:54007 WP No. 23180 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

should be avoided. The inconvenience caused to the other

¶63

side for the reason that the application has been filed belatedly could have been compensated by the Trial Court. The prayer made for amendment of pleading should be

¶64

granted in normal circumstances in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The proposed amendment in the present case is consistent with the stand taken by the plaintiff in the plaint and therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. The inconvenience caused to the other side can be compensated monetarily. Accordingly, the

¶65

following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The writ petition is allowed subject to

¶68

payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

¶69

(ii) The impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed on I.A.No.3/2022 in O.S.No.9195/2015 by the Court of LII Additional

¶70

8 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:54007 WP No. 23180 of 2022

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside and consequently the prayer made in the said application is granted. The cost imposed shall be paid by the petitioner to the contesting defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶74

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶75

KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

K Umapathi v. Sri G Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Umapathi v. Sri G Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.C.F. Jose Vs Dr. George

Sri S.D Nagendra Vs Sri T K Abraham

Sri.K.H.Vittala Vs Sri.D.R.Vijaya

Sri Ramaiah @ C Ramu Vs Sri Ashoka C

Shri Subbanna Vs Prabhuswamy

Smt. Pramila Devi S Vs Smt. Nalini