Dismissed¶60

Doreswamy v. Panchayath Development Officer

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2025WP/50015/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC; due diligence; commencement of trial; enlargement of suit schedule extent (2 acres to 2 acres 3 guntas); alteration of boundaries; gramathana property; cart road; Ex.P.34 Taluka Surveyor sketch; perpetual injunction suit; Article 227 writ; Karnataka High Court; Hosanagar; Shivamogga; O.S.No.82/2017; WP No. 50015 of 2019; Puran Ram (2008)4 SCC 102; Sampath Kumar AIR 2002 SC 3369.

What did the court decide?

Seeking to change the extent of land in the suit schedule property is impermissible, that too after the commencement of the trial. ¶52

Doreswamy Vs Panchayath Development Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagar in O.S.No.82/2017 on I.A.No.II (rejection of the amendment application) should be set aside and the application allowed. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

This Court found no error in the finding recorded by the Trial Court, and therefore the challenge to the rejection order fails.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

Seeking to change the extent of land in the suit schedule property is impermissible, that too after the commencement of the trial.

¶52

Key takeaways

There was absolutely no due diligence on the part of the petitioners, since Ex.P.34 was produced by them and was available when the suit was filed, yet they chose to mention 2 acres in the suit schedule; hence the Trial Court rightly rejected the amendment application.ratio¶47
The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners could not help them in any way.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the order dated 13.09.2019 of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosanagar rejecting I.A.No.II under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.82/2017, a suit for perpetual injunction by four brothers against the Panchayath Development Officer, Arasalu Village Panchayat over claimed gramathana property. The proposed amendment sought to enlarge the suit schedule from 2 acres to 2 acres 3 guntas and alter the western and southern boundaries, relying on Ex.P.34, a sketch prepared by the Taluka Surveyor, which the petitioners themselves had produced and known when the suit was filed. Held: enlarging the extent of the suit schedule is impermissible after commencement of trial; the application lacked due diligence; the Trial Court's rejection involved no error; the Supreme Court decisions in Puran Ram ((2008)4 SCC 102) and Sampath Kumar (AIR 2002 SC 3369) did not assist the petitioners.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:26936 WP No. 50015 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 50015 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DORESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE RACHAPPA GOWDA.

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶11

LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE RACHAPPA GOWDA.

¶12

MAHENDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE RACHAPPA GOWDA.

¶13

VIJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE RACHAPPA GOWDA.

¶14

ALL ARE R/O BENAVALLI VILLAGE, KEREHALLI HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ARASALU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, ARASALU, HOSANAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 426.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. PRASAD B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26936 WP No. 50015 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 13.09.2019, VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSANAGAR IN O.S.NO.82/2017 ON I.A.NO.II AND PASS APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS ALLOWING SAID APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.II AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.09.2019 passed on I.A.No.II by the learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosanagara in O.S.No.82/2017.

¶28

Sri. Chidambara G.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed the suit against the respondent for relief of perpectual injunction claiming that the plaintiffs are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from ages and the said property is gramathana property. It is submitted that petitioners have filed an application for amendment of plaint by noticing that the suit schedule property is incorrectly mentioned as 2 acres instead of 2 acres 3 guntas and also sought for amendment of

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26936 WP No. 50015 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

boundaries to the suit schedule property. It is submitted that in the plaint the boundaries towards the western side of the suit schedule property is mentioned as remaining land of the gramathana. Now, proposed amendment is to affect that, towards the western side there is a remaining extent of the gramathana and cart road. Similarly, in the southern side by inadvertence, it is mentioned as plaintiff's agriculture land instead of that now, intends to incorporate Sy.No.121 of the petitioners' agriculture land. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is based on the Ex.P.34, which is the sketch, prepared by the Taluka Surveyor, which depict that the petitioners are in possession of 2 acres 3 guntas of land. It is also submitted that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the other side. However, the Trial Court without appreciating any of these facts rejected the application. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶32

the case of PURAN RAM Vs. BHAGURAM AND ANOTHER¹ and in the case of SAMPATH KUMAR Vs. AYYAKANNU AND

¶33

1 (2008)4 SCC 102

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26936 WP No. 50015 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ANOTHER² and contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted to amend the schedule in a suit for specific performance of contract and also held that the delay cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment, if it is necessary to adjudicate real controversy between the parties. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.

¶37

Per contra, Sri. Prasad B.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that, the filing of the application by the petitioners is only to drag on the proceedings as petitioners are squatting over the gramathana property and the application has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court as Ex.P.34-survey report, which is basis for the application is very much available and it was in the knowledge of petitioners when the suit came to be filed. It is further submitted that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit as petitioners are adding extent of land as well as cart road in the boundary to the suit schedule property, which is impermissible. The said cart road is being used by the villagers from ages. As such an

¶38

2 AIR 2002 SC 3369

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:26936 WP No. 50015 of 2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of trial. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶43

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions advanced.

¶44

Petitioners have filed O.S.No.82/2017 against respondent-Panchayat Development Officer for relief of perpectual injunction claiming that petitioners and their family are in possession of suit schedule property measuring 2 acres land from the ages. Based on such assertion, suit was proceeded further. The respondent denied the averments of the plaint contending that petitioners have no right over the suit schedule property and false claim of possession is made over the same. Petitioner was examined himself as PW.1, who later filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court. The proposed amendment indicates that petitioners intend to expand the extent in the suit schedule

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26936 WP No. 50015 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

property from 2 acres to 2 acres 3 guntas and also intends to alter the boundaries of the suit schedule property particularly, the western side. In the original plaint, it is written as towards western side there is a remaining gramathana land however, in the proposed amendment, now, they intend to incorporate cart road and remaining gramathana land. Similarly, towards the southern side, the petitioners have mentioned the plaintiff's agriculture land and now intends to add Sy.No.121 of plaintiffs agricultural land. The proposed amendment is based on Ex.P.34-Survey report. In the evidence of PW.1, he has categorically admitted that he has filed a suit for injunction only to the extent of 2 acres of land and contrary to said evidence, filed an application based on Ex.P.34-Survey report. The material on record indicates that Ex.P.34 was produced by petitioners themselves and it was very much available with them and knowing fully well about the extent referred in the Ex.P.34, they had chosen to mention 2 acres in the suit schedule property. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that there is absolutely no due diligence on the part of the petitioners. The Trial Court taking note of the submissions and assertions in the affidavit accompanying the

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26936 WP No. 50015 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

application, rightly came to conclusion that the application is devoid of merits and rejected. I do not find any error in finding recorded by the Trial Court.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PURAN RAM ( supra ). In the said case at paragraph No.17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically recorded that there is no modification of the schedule, as such, only the mistake placed with regard to the numbers and prayed to allow the application.

¶52

In the case on hand, the petitioners are seeking to change the extent of land in the suit schedule property, which is impermissible, that too, after the commencement of the trial. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAMPATH KUMAR ( supra ), there is no dispute with regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.6 has held that the Courts while allowing the application for amendment is required to

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:26936 WP No. 50015 of 2019

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

take note of the stage of the proceedings and nature of amendment sought.

¶57

Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, I am of the considered view, that the filing of the present application is after the commencement of trial and without due diligence and that the petitioners were having knowledge about Ex.P.34, when the suit was filed.

¶58

I am of the considered view that the aforesaid

¶59

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court could not help the petitioners in any way.

¶60

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.

¶61

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶62

PHM

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Doreswamy v. Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doreswamy v. Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. D. P. Gupta Vs Sri. B. Shankar Naik

Sri. Boriah Vs Sri. Obanayaka

Sri. Ramesha Vs Smt. Sumitharamma

Sri. Ananda Vs Sri. C H Honnegowda

Smt.Vinodamma Vs Smt. Revannamma

Yallamma Since Dead by Lrs Vs Narayanamma