Disposed¶33

Sri Shankar Reddy v. Sri N Narayana

Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of written statement to record subsequent litigation

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2025WP/50581/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru — WP No. 50581 of 2019 (GM-CPC), decided 12-03-2025 by M.G.S. Kamal, J. Keywords: Article 227; Order 6 Rule 17; amendment of written statement; subsequent events/litigation between same parties; belated amendment; no prejudice; no change in nature of suit; bare injunction suit O.S.No.1694/1981; O.S.No.2273/1998; Order 7 Rule 11 rejection of plaint; RFA No.948/2001; S.L.P.No.20046-48/2008; 44-year pendency; direction to conclude suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was disposed of with no interference in the Trial Court's amendment order, coupled with an expressed hope that the Trial Court conclude the suit within six months. ¶33

Sri Shankar Reddy Vs Sri N Narayana — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 09.10.2019 allowing the defendant's application (I.A.No.16) under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the written statement is vitiated by irregularity or illegality so as to warrant being quashed in this writ petition under Article 227.

¶17

Court's answer

The Court accepted that the subsequent events pertaining to the aforesaid proceedings between the same parties could have been brought to the notice of the Court even without the amendment.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Bringing on record, by way of pleading in the written statement, the facts of the plaintiff's own subsequent judicial proceedings (O.S.No.2273/1998, RFA No.948/2001, S.L.P.No.20046-48/2008) would neither cause prejudice to the plaintiff nor change the nature of the suit, those proceedings having been initiated and prosecuted by the plaintiff himself.

¶32

Key takeaways

No irregularities or illegalities can be found in the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the amendment; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.ratio¶33
Considering the inexplicable period of pendency, the Court expressed the hope that the Trial Court would take up the suit on a day-to-day basis and dispose of it in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Amendment of pleadings — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of written statement to record subsequent litigation — Article 227 writ petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1694/1981 (suit for bare injunction pending over 44 years before the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) challenging the Trial Court's order dated 09.10.2019 on I.A.No.16 allowing the defendant's application to amend the written statement so as to place on record the plaintiff's subsequent proceedings: O.S.No.2273/1998 (comprehensive relief) rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, RFA No.948/2001 dismissed, and S.L.P.No.20046-48/2008 dismissed. Held: recording these facts by amendment causes no prejudice to the plaintiff and does not change the nature of the suit, the proceedings having been initiated and prosecuted by the plaintiff himself; no irregularity or illegality in the Trial Court's order; petition disposed of. Trial Court hoped to take up the suit day-to-day and dispose of it within six months. (M.G.S. Kamal, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10700 WP No. 50581 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 50581 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SHANKAR REDDY S/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT AGARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 520 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. G R LAKSHMIPATHY REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. N NARAYANA S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO 23, 14^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶15

(BY SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.1694/1981, ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-16), QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.10.2019 ON I.A.NO.16, IN O.S.NO.1694/1981 ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDE, BANGLORE (CCH-16) (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:10700 WP No. 50581 of 2019

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Plaintiff in a suit in O.S.No.1694/1981, on the file of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') which is pending consideration for over 44 years, is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court, by which an application filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 has been allowed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and documents annexed therewith submits that the amendment sought for by the defendant is only for the purpose of bringing on record the fact with regard to filing of suit in O.S.No.2273/1998 by the plaintiff, which was dismissed and filing of Regular First Appeal in RFA. No.948/2001 by the plaintiff which was also dismissed and with regard to filing of Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.No.20046-48/2008 which was also dismissed. He submits these are the facts which are available on record and need not be pleaded by the defendant by way of amendment to the written statement . He further submits that said application

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:10700 WP No. 50581 of 2019

¶27

for amendment is filed at a highly belated stage. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶28

Though it is very unfortunate that a suit for bare injunction is pending consideration for the past 44 years, except the blame game by one another, nothing is being said on a question for the reason for their inordinate delay. However fact remains the plaintiff/petitioner herein after having filed the present suit in O.S.No.1694/1981, for the relief of bare injunction, had subsequently filed a suit for comprehensive relief in O.S.No.2273/1998 plaint of which is admittedly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, challenge to the same made by the plaintiff/petitioner herein by filing Regular First Appeal in RFA. No.948/2001, resulted in dismissal. Further challenge made in Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.No.20046-48/2008 has also resulted in dismissal. It is these facts of the matter, which the respondent/defendant sought to bring on record.

¶29

As submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner herein, the subsequent events pertaining to aforesaid proceedings between the same parties could have been brought to the notice of the Court even without the amendment.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:10700 WP No. 50581 of 2019

¶32

Nonetheless, brining the same on record by way of a pleading in the written statement would neither cause prejudice to the plaintiff/petitioner herein nor would change the nature of the suit, inasmuch as the same of the judicial proceedings initiated and prosecuted by none other than the plaintiff/petitioner.

¶33

In that view of the matter, no irregularities or illegalities can be found in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

¶34

Considering the inexplicable period of time at which this matter is pending consideration, this Court only hopes that the Trial Court would take up the matter on day to day basis and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶36

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Shankar Reddy v. Sri N Narayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shankar Reddy v. Sri N Narayana

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 B G Ramaiah Vs Sri Mohammad Liyakat

Anil Kumar Vs Pradeep Kumar

Sri Mallada Kotrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B P Kalachar Vs Sri Puttappa

Kotramma Vs R. B. Eshwarappa

Sri D Balasundhram Vs Jason Von Hoong Chew