Sri Gundlagutta Pradeep Reddy Vs Smt Jayanthi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Gundlagutta Pradeep Reddy Vs Smt Jayanthi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure-A) quashed, thereby allowing the amendment application I.A. No.9; and the civil Court directed to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint with liberty to the respondents to complete their pleadings as permissible in law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil Court could reject the petitioner's application (I.A. No.9) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint to impugn the sale deed claimed by the impleaded twenty-fourth respondent, solely on the ground of delay/lack of just cause, having regard to the stage of the suit and the need to adjudicate the real dispute.

Court's answer

The Courts must lean in favour of amendments that would enable adjudication of the real dispute, especially when such amendment is prior to the commencement of the evidence.

Ratio / Principle

If the civil Court has to decide on the merits of the Gift Deed, then for complete and real adjudication it will also have to decide on the merits of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the twenty-fourth respondent for a portion of one of the survey numbers mentioned in the plaint.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner succeeded against the Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 but did not pursue his grievance against the Sale Deed in favour of the twenty-fourth respondent, the real controversy would remain incompletely adjudicated; accordingly, the civil Court could not have rejected the amendment application only on the ground of delay.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the plaintiff in O.S. No.7311/2018 (VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) against the order dated 15.03.2021 rejecting his I.A. No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint. The amendment was sought only after the twenty-fourth defendant was impleaded asserting purchase of 10 guntas from a co-defendant, so as to impugn the sale deed dated 7.7.2017 claimed by that defendant; the suit itself impugned a Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 and sought permanent injunction. Held: courts must lean in favour of amendments that enable adjudication of the real dispute, especially when sought prior to commencement of evidence; since the grievances against the Gift Deed and the twenty-fourth respondent's Sale Deed required adjudication together for a complete and real adjudication, the civil Court could not have rejected the amendment application only on the ground of delay, particularly as pleadings were complete and issues were yet to be framed. Petition allowed; impugned order quashed, amendment permitted, with liberty to respondents to complete their pleadings.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7757 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI GUNDLAGUTTA PRADEEP REDDY S/O SRI G JANARDHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT 2-282-2-3 P AND T COLONY, MADANPALLE ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 325.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REP BY PETITIONER'S BROTHER AND GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI GUNDLAGUTTA PRASHANTH REDDY S/O SRI. G JANARDHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.101 B BLOCK SVS PATELS CALISTIO APARTMENTS TALAKAVERI LAYOUT AMRUTHALLI, BALLARY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 092

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MOHAN REDDY H SAWKAR.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT JAYANTHI W/O OF SHRI M.C. MOHAN D/O SRI BALASUBRAMANYAM RESIDING AT

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

NO.892, 3^RD CROSS M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 032.

SRI RAMESHA S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

SRI MANJU S/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

SRI MURTHY S/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

SMT ASHWATHAMMA W/O SRI. VENKATESHAPPA D/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

MS MALA D/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

MASTER SHEKAR S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

KUM SHYLA D/O SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

NOS. 10 AND 11 ARE SINCE MINORS THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. MUNIYAPPA

SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

MR RAKESH S/O SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

MS. CHAITRA D/O SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

MASTER GUNDA S/O SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS SINCE MINOR

HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI GOVINDARAJU

SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

SMT NETHRAVATHI D/O SRI. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O SRI APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

SMT SARASWATHAMMA D/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

SRI LOKESH S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

MS LAKSHMI D/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

MS MAMATHA D/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

SL. NOS. 2 TO 22 ARE RESIDING AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE NAGAVARA DHAKALE ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU - 560 045.

MR M.C. MOHAN S/O MR. MURUGAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.892, 3^RD CROSS M C LAYOUT

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

VIJAYANAGARA

BENGALURU - 560 040.

MURALI P S/O G V PANISHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.2632

11^TH MAIN ROAD

2^ND STAGE E BLOCK RAJAJINGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.

…RESPONDENTS

(VIDE ORDER DATED 17.04.2024 NOTICE TO R1 TO R23 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.09.2024 NOTICE TO R24 STANDS WAIVED)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.7311/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDE BENGLAURU (CCH-19) QUASH ANNEXURE-A IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.3.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.9 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-19) IN O.S.NO.7311/2018.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

ORAL ORDER

This petition is by the plaintiff in O.S. No.7311/2018 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [ 'the civil Court' ]. The civil Court by the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 [ Annexure-A ] has rejected the petitioner's application [I.A. No.9] under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC]. The civil Court has reasoned thus to reject the petitioner's application.

"Upon consideration of the above facts, it is seen that the above application was filed on 12.10.2020, wherein the case was filed in the year 2018 and the amendment sought to be produced pertaining to the alleged sale deed dated 7.7.2017, which is prior to the filing of the suit. No just cause has been made by the plaintiff for the delay in filing the above application. As to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC., which clearly mandates that, amendment to be allowed only on just causes."

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S. No.7311/2018 asserting ownership of the site in No.417 in different survey numbers of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk impugning the Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 insofar as it relates to his property and for permanent injunction. The petitioner has initially filed this suit only against the first to twenty-third respondents asserting that the first respondent could not have executed the impugned Gift Deed in favour of the other respondents.

The petitioner has detailed in the plaint the circumstances which according to him entitles him to the prayer as sought for. However, the twentyfourth respondent has impleaded himself in the suit asserting that he has purchased an extent of 10 guntas in one of the subject survey numbers from one of the other defendants [ the other respondents ]. It is after this impleadment, the petitioner has filed the

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

present application for amendment to impugn the sale deed claimed by the twenty-fourth respondent. The petitioner's specific case is that he was not aware of the sale deed in favour of the twenty fourth respondent until the application for impleadment is filed.

Sri Mohan Reddy H Sawkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the pleadings are complete even by the twenty-fourth respondent, but Issues are yet to be framed. The merits of the civil Court's reasoning as against the impugned order is examined in all the circumstances as aforesaid and the settled law that the Courts must lean in favour of the amendments that would enable adjudication of the real dispute especially when such amendment is prior to the commencement of the evidence.

The sale deed in favour of the petitioner

for the subject property is by a Co-operative Society, but the impugned Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 and

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

the sale deed in favour of the twenty-fourth respondent are because of certain proceedings which are detailed in the plaint. The twenty-fourth respondent asserts that a decree in favour of the petitioner could jeopardize his interest. If the civil Court has to decide on the merits of the Gift Deed, for complete and real adjudication, it will also have to decide on the merits of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the twenty-fourth respondent for a certain portion of one of the survey numbers that are mentioned in the plaint.

The petitioner’s property is in these survey numbers. If the petitioner succeeds against the Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 but does not pursue his grievance with the Sale Deed in favour of the twentyfourth respondent, the real controversy will not be completely adjudicated. In the circumstances, the civil Court could not have rejected the application only on the ground of delay. Hence the following:

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1392 WP No. 7757 of 2021

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed.

[b] The impugned order dated 15.03.2021 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Annexure-A] is quashed allowing the application for amendment.

[c] The civil Court is directed to allow the petitioner to amend the plaint with liberty to the respondents to complete their pleadings as is permissible in law in the light of this amendment.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 15.03.2021 rejecting the petitioner's application I.A. No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint, on the ground that no just cause was made out for the delay in filing it.¶60
VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 15.03.2021
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed suit O.S. No.7311/2018 asserting ownership of the site in No.417 in different survey numbers of Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, impugning the Gift Deed dated 01.10.2011 and seeking permanent injunction.¶64
Prior proceeding
Suit was initially filed only against the first to twenty-third respondents, asserting that the first respondent could not have executed the impugned Gift Deed in favour of the other respondents.¶64
Prior proceeding
The twenty-fourth respondent impleaded himself in the suit asserting he had purchased an extent of 10 guntas in one of the subject survey numbers from one of the other defendants.¶65
Prior proceeding
After the impleadment, the petitioner filed I.A. No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint so as to impugn the sale deed claimed by the twenty-fourth respondent.¶68
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's stated case for the timing of the amendment: he was not aware of the sale deed in favour of the twenty-fourth respondent until the application for impleadment was filed.¶68
Prior proceeding
Per the civil Court's recorded reasoning, the amendment application was filed on 12.10.2020 in a suit filed in 2018; the amendment pertained to the alleged sale deed dated 7.7.2017, which predates the suit.¶61
Prior proceeding
Civil Court's stated ground of rejection: no just cause made out by the plaintiff for the delay, invoking Order VI Rule 17 CPC which it said mandates amendment only on just causes.¶61
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pleadings were complete even by the twenty-fourth respondent but issues were yet to be framed in the suit.¶69
Prior proceeding
In the writ petition, notice to respondents 1 to 23 was dispensed with by order dated 17.04.2024 and notice to respondent 24 stood waived by order dated 22.09.2024.¶53