Dismissed¶46

Dr. Sreekara Swamy R v. Sri. Venkataswamy

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026WP/10561/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order VI Rule 17 CPC plaint amendment; proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC; amendment application filed before commencement of trial; delay of 8 years in pressing amendment; additional written statement by defendant; declaration of absolute ownership; suit for permanent injunction O.S.No.722/2010; II Additional Civil Judge Bangalore Rural District; writ petition under Article 227 Constitution of India; cost of Rs.5,000/-; Karnataka High Court 2026; GM-CPC.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the impugned Trial Court order allowing the amendment is upheld. The plaintiff's application IA.No.V under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stands allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- cost to the petitioner, who is permitted to file an additional written statement to the amendment. Pending I.A.No.1 of 2025 does not survive. ¶46

Dr. Sreekara Swamy R Vs Sri. Venkataswamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District in O.S.No.722/2010, allowing respondent No.1's application IA.No.V under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint, calls for interference in this writ petition under Article 227.

¶24

Court's answer

Since the amendment application was admittedly filed before commencement of the trial and at the earliest stage of proceedings, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not come in the way of the plaintiff seeking the amendment.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Ends of justice would be met if the petitioner (defendant) is allowed to file an additional written statement to the proposed amendment.

¶41

Key takeaways

Because the plaintiff did not press the amendment application for more than 8 years, the application is required to be allowed on cost.ratio¶41
The impugned order of the Trial Court allowing the amendment does not call for any interference.ratio¶46
Allowance of the plaintiff's application IA.No.V under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is made subject to the condition that the plaintiff pays cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), WP No. 10561 of 2023 (GM-CPC) under Article 227, decided 08.06.2026: Challenge to the order dated 19.04.2023 of the II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, in O.S.No.722/2010 (suit for permanent injunction), allowing the plaintiff's IA.No.V under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by narrating facts on possession and title and adding a prayer for declaration of absolute ownership. The amendment application was filed on 09.06.2011, before commencement of trial, but was pressed only after about 8 years when trial had begun. Held: (i) the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is no bar since the application was filed before commencement of trial; (ii) ends of justice are met by permitting the defendant/petitioner to file an additional written statement to the amendment; (iii) the 8-year non-prosecution is compensated by imposing cost. The impugned order was not interfered with; the amendment was allowed on condition that the plaintiff pays Rs.5,000/- cost to the petitioner; the writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and pending I.A.No.1 of 2025 was held not to survive.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10561 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. SREEKARA SWAMY R., SON OF LATE.S.RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SUMUKA' MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, 6^TH CROSS, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR - 572 102.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.144, 2^ND CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶15

SRI.R.RAMACHANDRAIAH, SINCE DEAD LR'S ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.

¶16

SMT.LALITHA, D/O NARASHIMAIAH,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MAJOR,

¶20

R/AT NO.69/3, 19^TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, 2^ND BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶21

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O M.S.VEERANNAGOWDA, MAJOR, R/A NO.309, 1^ST STAGE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶22

SMT.B.R.NAGAVENI, W/O HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.95, 23^RD MAIN ROAD, JAIMARUTHINAGARA, NANDINI BHADAVANE, BENGALURU - 560 096. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2023)

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023, PASSED IN O.S.NO.722/2010 BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, ON IA NO.V FILED BY THE R1 UNDER ORDER V RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

PROCEDURE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A.NO.V, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶29

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed in OS No.722 of 2010 by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court', for short) on IA.No.V filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC').

¶33

2. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar K. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Somashekaraiah H.M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶34

3. The respondent No.1 has filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

herein and respondents No.2 to 4. In the said suit, the petitioner filed a detailed written statement denying plaint averments. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking to amend the plaint on 09.06.2011. The proposed amendment indicate the narration of certain facts with regard to the possession and title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has sought the additional prayer of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the petitioner mainly on

¶38

the ground that there is delay of 8 years in filing an application and due to proposed amendment the jurisdiction of the Court would change. Admittedly, the matter was at the stage of trial, the counsel for the plaintiff has pressed the application for amendment which came to be allowed by the Trial Court.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

4. It is not in dispute that the application seeking for amendment is filed before commencement of the trial and at the earliest stage of proceedings. However, the Trial Court has not considered the said application and it was pending before it. It has considered the application after the commencement of trial and allowed the same. In my considered view, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC would not come in the way of plaintiff seeking amendment. The proposed amendment is narration of facts with regard to the possession as well as the title and also seeking additional prayer of declaration of ownership, in my considered view, ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner herein is allowed to file additional written statement to such amendment. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that the application was not pressed by the plaintiff for more than 8 years. Hence, the same is required to be allowed on cost.

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:27052 WP No. 10561 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

¶45

5. For the aforementioned reasons. I am of the

¶46

view that the impugned order of the Trial Court would not call for any interference. However, allowing application filed by the plaintiff in IA.No.V under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is with a condition that the plaintiff

¶47

shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner herein.

¶48

In view of the disposal of main petition, pending

¶49

I.A.No.1 of 2025 does not survive for consideration.

¶50

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶51

MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Dr. Sreekara Swamy R v. Sri. Venkataswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sreekara Swamy R v. Sri. Venkataswamy

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 Ramakrishna Vs Bidarakote Gramapanchayath

Sri. H.N. Sathynarayana Reddy Vs Smt Naseem Mariam Abdul Khadir

Smt Narasakka Vs Smt Achamma

Smt. H. Bhagirathi Vs Sri. R. Gangappa

N Narasimhamurthy Vs Smt Shobha Nayak

Smt Bettamma Vs Sri Puttamadegowda