Dismissed¶66

Smt Geetha Ramesh v. Sri Goolaiah

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2025WP/46/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; additional alternative prayer; inconsistent stand by plaintiff; moulding of relief; belated application at final-arguments stage; writ under Articles 226/227 dismissed; Baldev Singh v Manohar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 498 relied on; O.S.No.229 of 2014, VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru; reference to O.S.No.82 of 2008 decree dated 20.10.2010; Karnataka High Court WP No. 46 of 2024 (GM-CPC), decided 11-12-2025 by S Vishwajith Shetty J.

What did the court decide?

It is trite that a plaintiff cannot take an inconsistent stand in the plaint; the proposed alternative prayer claiming half-share ownership is inconsistent with the existing prayer to declare the judgment and decree in O.S.No.82 of 2008 null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. ¶51

Smt Geetha Ramesh Vs Sri Goolaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 05.08.2022 of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru dismissing I.A.No.VI (amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) in O.S.No.229 of 2014 warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The amendment application was filed belatedly when the suit was at the stage of addressing final arguments, and the Trial Court observed that allowing the prayer was not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions and controversy between the parties.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

¶51

Key takeaways

The Court adjudicating the dispute between the parties has the power to mould the relief after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties; if the plaintiff is entitled to such a relief, it is always open to him to bring the same to the notice of the Court and there is no requirement to amend the plaint for the said purpose.ratio¶59
Merely for the reason that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit, it is not necessary to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating the additional prayer.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.), by oral order dated 11.12.2025, dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 challenging the order dated 05.08.2022 of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru, dismissing I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.229 of 2014 — an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed at the stage of final arguments to incorporate an additional alternative prayer declaring the plaintiff owner of half the suit schedule property (the share allotted to Smt. Devamma, 8th defendant in O.S.No.82 of 2008, judgment dated 20.10.2010). Held, relying on Baldev Singh and Others v Manohar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 498: (i) a plaintiff cannot take inconsistent stands in the plaint — the alternative half-share claim contradicts the existing prayer to declare the O.S.No.82 of 2008 decree null and void and not binding; (ii) the Court adjudicating the dispute can mould the relief on the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, and if the plaintiff is entitled to such relief he may bring it to the Court's notice without amending the plaint; (iii) the application being belated and unnecessary for determining the real controversy, the mere fact that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit or its cause of action did not compel its grant. I.A.No.1 of 2024 in the writ petition does not survive; the Trial Court was called upon to dispose of the suit of 2014 expeditiously on merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52544 WP No. 46 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 46 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. GEETHA RAMESH W/O LATE H A RAMESH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. DIVYA A S D/O LATE H A RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶10

SRI H R RITHESH S/O LATE H A RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT D NO.3/1, RAJAPUTH BLOCK SHIVAJI ROAD, N R MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 007.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI GOOLAIAH S/O LATE JAVARAIAH SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS I.E. R-2 TO R-4

¶18

SMT. CHINNAMAYAMMA W/O GOOLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶19

MS. SRIDEVI D/O GOOLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:52544 WP No. 46 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

JAYALAKSHMI D/O GOOLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶24

ALL ARE RESIDING AT D NO.311 WATER TANK ROAD, YELWALA VILLAGE AND POST MYSURU TALUK - 571 130.

¶25

SRI KENCHE GOWDA S/O SHIVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK - 570 018.

¶26

SRI PALAHALLI RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE K SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/T NO.150/1, 2ND MAIN 2ND STAGE, GOKULAM, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 007.

¶27

SRI NINGAIAH S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶28

SMT DEVAMMA W/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶29

SRI GANESH S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶30

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 9 ARE R/AT D NO.277 TANK ROAD, S C COLONY, YELWALA VILLAGE AND POST, MYSURUT ALUK - 571 130.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI M. MAHESHA, ADV., FOR R-3, R-4, R-7, R-8, R-9; SRI T.V. SATHISH, ADV., FOR R-5; SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA C, ADV., FOR R-6 V/O DTD 18.11.2025 R-2 TO R-4 ARE

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:52544 WP No. 46 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

TREATED AS LRs OF DEAD R-1)

¶37

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-F, IA NO. 6, IN O.S NO. 229/ ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSURUII) ALLOW THE I.A.NO.6 FILED FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed

¶42

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.08.2022 passed on I.A.No.VI filed in O.S.No.229 of 2014 by the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru.

¶43

Heard.

¶44

O.S.No.229 of 2014 is filed by the petitioners herein

¶45

seeking the relief of declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property and also to

¶46

declare the Sale Deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.5 dated 07.11.2000 in respect of the suit

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:52544 WP No. 46 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

schedule properties is null and void. A further declaration is also sought to declare that the judgment and decree passed in OS No.82.2008 dated 20.10.2000 as not binding on the plaintiff and a consequential relief of permanent injunction is also sought in the suit. The said suit is opposed by the contesting defendants. When the suit was at the stage of addressing final arguments on the merits of the case, I.A.No.VI is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating additional prayer. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection. The trial Court, vide the order impugned has dismissed I.A.No.VI. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶51

It is trite that plaintiff cannot take inconsistent stand in the plaint. The plaintiff has made a prayer to declare the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.82 of 2008 dated 20.10.2010 by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The prayer made in the present application is to permit the plaintiff to

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:52544 WP No. 46 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

amend the plaint by incorporating a additional prayer which reads as follows:-

¶56

"In the alternative, declare that the plaintiff is the owner of half share in suit schedule property allotted to Smt. Devamma i.e., the 8^th defendant in O.S.No.82 of 2008 on the file of Hon'ble II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysore vide judgment dated 20.10.2010".

¶57

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALDEV

¶58

SINGH AND OTHERS V MANOHAR SINGH reported in

¶59

(2006) 6 SCC 498 has observed that the plaintiff cannot raise inconsistent stand in his plaint. Further, in the affidavit which is filed in support of the prayer made in the application, it is stated that the application is file belatedly by moulding the relief sought in the suit. The Court adjudicating the dispute between the parties has the power to mould the relief after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties. If the plaintiff is entitled for such a relief, it is always open for him to

¶60

bring the same to the notice of the Court and there is no requirement to amend the plaint for the said purpose. The application is filed in the present case belatedly when the suit

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:52544 WP No. 46 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

was at the stage of addressing final arguments. The Trial Court

¶65

has observed that it is not necessary for allowing the prayer made in the application for the purpose of determining the real questions and controversy between the parties. Under the circumstances, merely for the reason that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit, it is not necessary to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating additional prayer. Therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order which is challenged in this petition.

¶66

6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶67

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1 of 2024 will not survive for consideration.

¶68

Since the suit is of the year 2014, the Trial Court shall

¶69

make endeavours to dispose of the suit on merits expeditiously.

¶70

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶71

NMS