Sri. C Mohan Sonu Vs Sri. H R Chandra @ Ramachnadra

SRI. C MOHAN SONU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O H.R. CHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRA R/A NO. 14, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT SANJAYNAGARA POST NAGASHETTYHALLI BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. THRIMURTHY K.P, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. H R CHANDRA @ RAMACHNADRA S/O UTHNALAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶16

KUM C. AMRUTHA VARSHINI D/O H.R. CHANDRA @ RAMCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶17

RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 R/A NO. 14, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT SANJAYNAGARA POST NAGASHETTYHALLI BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52693 WP No. 4666 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

H.R. NARAYANASWAMY

¶21

S/O UTNALAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A NO. 16/1, ANNAPOORNA APARTMENT NANJAPPA GARDEN, BABUSAS PALYA BEHIND NAGA PALACE KALYANA NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶22

SMT. KAMALA W/O LATE K.H. SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶23

SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE K.H. SURBAMANI W/O SRI DIWAKARA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 R/A NO.1072, LAKSHMI NILAYA 8TH CROSS, ADARSHA LAYOUT I BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079.

¶25

SRI. MAHAVEER GULECHA S/O SRI. TEJRAJ GULECHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO. 40/A, BLASSIC ORCHIDS BEHIND MEENASHI TEMPLE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶26

M/S. MANYATA RALTY NO. 9/1, CLASSIC COURT

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52693 WP No. 4666 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

RICHMOND ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN BANGALORE - 560 025 A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. TEJRAJ GULECHA

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. VENKATESH MURTHY G.R, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. S. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. S.V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. B.S. RADHANANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.12.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶32

R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27/01/2023 ON IA FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 CPC PASSED BY HONBLE LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN OS NO. 5008/2016, AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE IA AND ETC.,

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52693 WP No. 4666 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.01.2023 based on an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC by the plaintiff in O.S.No.5008/2016 by the court of the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

Suit in O.S.No.5008/2016 is filed before the jurisdictional civil court at Bengaluru by the plaintiff seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also to declare the Release Deed and Sale Deeds as not binding on the share of the plaintiff.

¶42

In the said suit, the contesting defendant No.3 has filed written statement and opposed the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of recording the plaintiff's evidence, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52693 WP No. 4666 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 19.07.2022 seeking amendment of the suit schedule properties by including additional properties, which are said to be the joint family properties of the parties to the suit. The said application was opposed by defendant No.3 by filing objection. The Trial Court, vide its impugned order, has rejected the application and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, submits that defendant No.3 has raised a contention in his written statement that the suit is bad for non-joinder of all joint family properties and application is now filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the schedule of the plaint and include the left out joint family properties. The Trial Court, without appreciating this aspect of the matter, has erred in rejecting the application.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52693 WP No. 4666 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/defendant No.3 submits that application has been filed after commencement of the trial and in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the same is not permissible. He further submits that the present application has been filed after a period of nearly five years from the date of written statement filed on behalf of the defendant No.3 and therefore, there was no due diligence on the part of the plaintiff and the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application.

¶50

The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.5008/2006 seeking relief of partition as well as declaration. In the said suit, defendant No.3, who is the contesting party, has filed his written statement and opposed the suit claim. A specific plea has been raised by defendant No.3 in his written statement that the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the joint family properties. Application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has now been filed by the plaintiff seeking to amend the schedule of the plaint by including certain

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52693 WP No. 4666 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

properties, which are allegedly the joint family properties left out in the plaint schedule and the Trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that the said application was filed belatedly and that the plaintiff has failed to show that the properties, which are now sought to be included in the schedule, had devolved on his father.

¶54

It is trite that at the time of considering the application for amendment, the courts are not supposed to delve into the merits of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another , reported in (2022) SCC Online 1128:AIR 2020 SC 4256 , has held that in normal circumstances the court should allow the applications filed for amendment of the pleadings unless the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. The said approach is required to be done for avoiding multiplicity of litigation. In the said case, it is also observed that the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach while

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52693 WP No. 4666 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

considering the application for amendment. The proposed amendment in the present case does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action of the suit. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is not a complete bar for considering the application filed seeking amendment of the pleadings after commencement of trial. It is trite that to avoid multiplicity of litigations, the court should allow applications filed seeking amendment of the pleadings. Since defendant No.3 has raised a specific plea in his written statement that the suit is bad for non-joinder of all joint family properties, it appears that the present application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter and has erred in rejecting the application. The inconvenience caused to defendant No.3 in view of the delay caused in filing the application can be compensated monetarily.

¶58

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶59

9 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:52693 WP No. 4666 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The writ petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹5,000/- to defendant No.3;

¶64

ii. The impugned order dated 27.01.2023 on an application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, passed by LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5008/2016 as

¶65

per Annexure-E, is set aside and consequently, the prayer made in the application is granted;

¶66

iii. The plaintiff shall pay the cost imposed to the defendant No.3 on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court.

¶67

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶68

HDK

Sri. C Mohan Sonu v. Sri. H R Chandra @ Ramachnadra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C Mohan Sonu v. Sri. H R Chandra @ Ramachnadra

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. Vikram Prabhakar Vs Mr. Deepu Kumar S

Sri. M. Abdul Khuddus Vs Sri. Abdul Gafoor

Sri. M. G. Srinivas Vs Smt. Yellamma

Govindappa Vs Sri Rangappa

Smt Geetha Ramesh Vs Sri Goolaiah

Ramabhadregowda Vs Ningegowda