Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.1111/2014 c/w O.S.No.287/2012 (V Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru) — a suit for declaration that a sale deed dated 10.12.2010 is void and that the plaintiffs are absolute owners in possession — challenging the order dated 11.09.2025 rejecting IA No.35 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, by which he sought insertion of paragraph 18A pleading a complaint to Kuvempunagara police station alleging misrepresentation and fraud, the defendant's alleged undertaking to execute a re-conveyance deed, and the police endorsement that the matter was civil in nature. The application was filed when the trial had concluded and the matter was posted for arguments/pronouncement of judgment; the defendants had opposed it, noting four earlier amendment applications were allowed and that the averment already stood in paragraph 19 of the plaint. Holding that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 bars amendments after commencement of trial absent due diligence, and that even on the plaintiff's own showing the averment existed at paragraph-19 with the complaint document well within his knowledge before the suit, the High Court (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.) found no good ground or cogent reason to interfere, upheld the trial Court's rejection, dismissed the petition with cost of Rs.5,000/-, and held I.A. No.1/2025 to pale into insignificance.
