Mr Anjanappa Vs Sugada Bai — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr Anjanappa Vs Sugada Bai — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 01.04.2021 passed on IA No.14 in OS No.8659/2014 set aside; IA No.14 allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA No.14 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the prayer column in OS No.8659/2014, and whether the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 ought to be set aside.

Court's answer

The proposed amendment (inserting 'permanent' before 'mandatory injunction' and replacing 'directing' with 'restraining' in prayer (a)) does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action; it seeks only to clarify the prayer made in the suit.

Ratio / Principle

The objections to the amendment did not contend that the defendants would be put to hardship in any manner if the proposed amendment was allowed; only inconvenience at a belated stage was pleaded.

Key takeaways

Courts are required to be liberal while considering applications for amendment of pleadings, and such an approach is required to avoid multiplicity of litigation.ratio¶4
Inconvenience caused to the other side by allowing a belated amendment can be compensated monetarily; accordingly, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA No.14.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure - Amendment of pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC - Amendment of prayer column - Plaintiff in OS No.8659/2014 (suit for mandatory injunction in respect of suit schedule B property) sought in IA No.14 to insert the word 'permanent' before 'mandatory injunction' and to replace 'directing' with 'restraining' in prayer (a); the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejected the application by order dated 01.04.2021, the suit being at the stage of arguments. On a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court held that the amendment neither changed the nature of the suit nor the cause of action but only clarified the prayer; that courts must be liberal in allowing amendments to avoid multiplicity of litigation; that the objections pleaded no hardship to the defendants, only inconvenience; and that inconvenience to the other side can be compensated monetarily. The impugned order was set aside and IA No.14 allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44442 WP No. 7916 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7916 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MR. ANJANAPPA, S/O HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO. 3/16, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, RING ROAD SERVICE ROAD, 4^TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SUGADA BAI, W/O LATE NARAYAN RAO, AGED MAJOR.

MR. N GIRISH @ GOPAL, S/O LATE NARAYAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

BOTH SL.NO. 1 AND 2 R/AT NO.17, 6^TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 096.

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44442 WP No. 7916 of 2021

HC-KAR

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WARD NO 43, MAHALAKSHMI PURAM, SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 096.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTIOR OF TOWN PLANNING (WEST),

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B SATEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; V/O DATED 20.04.2021 NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-5 IS D/W)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2021 PASSED BY THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 40) AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.8659/2014 (ANNEXURE-A) AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 (INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 01.04.2021 passed on IA No.14 filed under Order VI Rule

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44442 WP No. 7916 of 2021

HC-KAR

17 read with Section 151 of CPC in OS No.8659/2014 by the

Court of XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Suit in OS No.8659/2014 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule B property. Contesting defendants had opposed the prayer made in the suit by filing written statement. IA No.14 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the prayer column in the plaint in OS No.8659/2014. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing the objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the said application.

Suit in OS No.8659/2014 is filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants, his legal heirs or anybody claiming under him from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule B property. The proposed amendment in IA No.14 is to permit the plaintiff to insert the word 'permanent' before the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44442 WP No. 7916 of 2021

HC-KAR

words 'mandatory injunction' in prayer (a) and also replace the word 'directing' by the word 'restraining' in prayer (a) found in the plaint in OS No.8659/2014. The said prayer do not either change the nature of the suit or the cause of action and on the other hand, the amendment sought is to clarify the prayer made in the suit. In the objections filed to the said application, it is contented that application is filed to drag the proceedings in a suit which is at the stage of arguments. It is not contended in the objections that defendants will be put to hardship in any manner if the proposed amendment is allowed. What is sought to be pleaded is that defendants will be put to inconvenience if the proposed amendment which is filed at a belated stage is allowed. It is trite that Courts are required to be liberal while considering applications for amendment of pleadings and the said approach is required to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Inconvenience caused to the other side can be compensated monetarily and therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA No.14. Accordingly, following order:-

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44442 WP No. 7916 of 2021

HC-KAR

The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated

01.04.2021 passed on IA No.14 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in OS No.8659/2014 by the Court of XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set-aside. Consequently, IA No.14 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The cost imposed shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

DN