Dismissed¶44

Sri. Sidappa v. Sri.R. Vasantha Kumar

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2025WP/3947/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; W.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC; rectification/correction of boundaries of suit schedule property; O.S.No.620/2019; suit for specific performance of agreement dated 04.12.2008; order dated 25.10.2023 of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru upheld; writ petition dismissed; multiplicity of litigation.

What did the court decide?

None - the prayer to set aside the order dated 25.10.2023 on IA.no.9 was rejected; the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment stands. ¶44

Sri. Sidappa Vs Sri.R. Vasantha Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:54398 WP No. 3947 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 3947 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SIDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.48, KAMANAKERE HUNDI RAMANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI MYSURU - 570 019.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESHCHANDRA B.N, ADV. -ABSENT)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI R. VASANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O RANGEGOWDA R/AT NO.88, NEAR ALANAHALLI GATE BANNUR ROAD, MYSORE- 570 026.

¶16

SMT. KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS W/O LATE BORAIAH.

¶17

SRI B. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE BORAIAH.

¶18

RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE R/AT NO 48, KAMANAKERE HUNDI RAMANAHALLI POST, KASABAHOBLI MYSURU - 570 019.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:54398 WP No. 3947 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

25.10.2023 ON IA NO.9 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.620/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC MYSURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Defendant no.2 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25.10.2023 passed on IA.no.9 in O.S.No.620/2019 by the Court of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

Respondent no.1 herein has filed O.S.No.620/2019 before the jurisdictional Civil Court, Mysuru, seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 04.12.2008 and for the consequential relief of possession of the suit schedule property.

¶31

The contesting defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54398 WP No. 3947 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

IA.no.9 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with

¶35

Section 151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff with a prayer to permit the plaintiff to amend the schedule of the plaint.

¶36

The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections.

¶37

The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant no.2 is before this Court.

¶38

Perusal of the averments found in IA.no.9 which is supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff would go to show that the proposed amendment is only to rectify the boundary of the suit schedule property. In the affidavit which is filed in support of the application, it is stated that in the agreement for sale dated 04.12.2008 as well as in the legal notice issued prior to filing of the suit, the boundaries of the suit schedule property have been correctly mentioned. However, a mistake had crept in while describing the boundaries of the suit schedule property in the plaint. Only after having noticed the same, necessary application has been filed.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54398 WP No. 3947 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The Trial Court having appreciated the said aspect of the

¶42

matter, has allowed the application. It is trite that unless the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit, the courts normally should be liberal in considering the application seeking amendment of plaint so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

¶43

In the present case, the boundaries of the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint is sought to be rectified. The correct boundaries of the suit schedule property has been mentioned in the agreement for sale as well as in the legal notice issued to the defendants by the plaintiff prior to the filing of the suit. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that

¶44

the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶46

Sri. Sidappa v. Sri.R. Vasantha Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sidappa v. Sri.R. Vasantha Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramaiah @ C Ramu Vs Sri Ashoka C

Shri Subbanna Vs Prabhuswamy

K Umapathi Vs Sri G Krishnan

Sri a Nagaraj Vs Sri Sanjeevappa

M/S Vakil Housing Development Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs Smt. Malathi

Sri Venugopal @ Venugopal Reddy Vs Smt Akkayamma