Smt Sudha Vs Shri Abubekar

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29764 W.P. No.11219/2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.11219/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUDHA D/O SHRI NAGESH RAO W/O SHRI. H.C. KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT. ARALIKATTE GUDDETHOTA VILLAGE MEGUNDA HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577123.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHRI. ABUBEKAR PWD CONTRACTOR R/AT. KOPPA KOPPA POST AND TALUK-577126.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH SUB DIVISION KOPPA, KOPPA TALUK-577126.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHICKMAGALUR CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577126.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. NAYANASHREE, ADV., FOR SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 R1 SD AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29764 W.P. No.11219/2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND N.R. PURA, ITINERATE AT KOPPA, IN R.A.NO.04/2021. QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN R.A.NO.4/2021 DTD 25.02.2022, BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT N.R. PURA, ITINERATE AT KOPPA, (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING AMENDMENT & ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2022 passed on I.A.No.II in R.A.No.4/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at N.R.Pura, Itinerate at Koppa (for short, 'the Trial Court').

¶26

Sri.Nanda Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents herein on a specific assertion that defendants, without any right, title, tried to widen the road shown in the rough sketch as “ABCDEF”. It is submitted that the plaintiff herself has

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29764 W.P. No.11219/2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

clearly admitted in the plaint that the disputed road is measuring 12½ feet. However, the defendants tried to widen the road without any authority of law. The plaint was opposed by the defendants by filing a written statement. After enquiry, the suit came to be dismissed. The same was challenged before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.4/2021. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, while dismissing the suit on other grounds, has also recorded a finding that the chakbandi to the suit schedule property does not tally with the documents placed on record. Hence, on verification, the plaintiff came to know by inadvertence, towards the eastern side, she has referred the boundary as Survey Nos.12 and 9 instead of referring to Survey No.13/3 which is as per the phodi conducted in the year 2002. It is also submitted that the chakbandi to the schedule has nothing to do with the dispute between the parties. However, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that there is discrepancy in the plaint schedule and proceeded to reject the suit on other

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:29764 W.P. No.11219/2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

grounds as well, which compelled the plaintiff to file an application seeking amendment for correction of the chakbandi in the plaint which also came to be rejected erroneously by the Appellate Court.

¶34

It is contended that the dispute between the

¶35

parties is mainly relating to the existence of the road and its widening. The plaintiff has specifically contended that there existed a road shown in the sketch produced along with the plaint. However, the width of the road is 12½ feet which has been denied by the defendants and they wanted to widen the road. Instead of considering these aspects, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the suit itself on the ground that the chakbandi and the schedule does not tally with the atlas sketch. The Trial Court has considered some stray evidence of PW-2. It is further contended that by allowing the present amendment, neither the prayer in the suit would change nor the cause of action would change or would cause any harm to the other side. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29764 W.P. No.11219/2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Per contra , Smt.Nayanashree, learned counsel

¶39

for Sri.Ashok N.Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 supports the impugned order and submits that the Appellate Court, considering all the aspects has rightly rejected the application seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that there is a clear discrepancy with regard to the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶40

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶41

counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material available on record.

¶42

The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.12/2014 before the Civil Judge, Koppa, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from forming a road by extending the width of the “ABCDEF” road not more than 12½ feet and also not to form the

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29764 W.P. No.11219/2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

road in “GH” and “CIJK” roads and not to touch “GH” and “CIJK” roads in any manner. The said suit was opposed by the defendants. Ultimately, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 18.01.2020 dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff filed R.A.No.4/2021. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking permission to amend the plaint. The proposed amendment is only with regard to the chakbandi of the plaint, more particularly with regard to the eastern boundary. The petitioner intended to substitute the eastern boundary from Sy.Nos.12 and 9 to Sy.No.13/3 based on the phodi conducted in the year 2002. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Court.

¶46

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff would have

¶47

filed the said application during the pendency of the said suit. What is required to be noticed in the present proceedings is that the dispute between the petitioner and

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29764 W.P. No.11219/2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the respondents is only relating to the width of the road shown as “ABCDEF”. As per the petitioner and the plaint averments, it is admitted that there existed a road shown in the sketch. However, the width of the road is 9 to 12½

¶51

feet and not more than that and a specific assertion is made that the defendants are illegally trying to widen the road. Based on such an assertion, the Trial Court framed the issues and the suit came to be dismissed. The proposed amendment is only with regard to the change of chakbandi shown in the schedule. In my considered view, by substituting Sy.No.13/3 to the eastern boundary in place of Sy.Nos.12 and 9 in the plaint, neither the prayer in the plaint nor the pleading or the alleged admission or the cause of action would change. The proposed amendment is again based on the phodi conducted in the year 2002. Either allowing or refusing the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side nor affect the appeal pending before the Appellate Court.

¶52

8 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:29764 W.P. No.11219/2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and taking note

¶56

of the dispute between the parties, I am of the considered view that though the amendment is sought at the belated stage, that too at the appellate stage, no prejudice or harm would be caused to the other side if the amendment is allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶59

(ii) The impugned order dated 25.02.2022 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.II filed in R.A.No.4/2021 by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, is allowed.

¶60

(iii) The petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint as sought. She shall file the amended plaint before the Appellate Court within a period of four weeks.

¶61