Sri R v Amaresh Vs Sri T v Mahadev — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri R v Amaresh Vs Sri T v Mahadev — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: order dated 25.02.2026 on I.A.No.VIII in O.S.No.133/2019 set aside and I.A.No.VIII (amendment of plaint) allowed; defendant at liberty to file additional written statement; petitioner/plaintiff to pay Rs.10,000/- cost to the respondent for the delay; petitioner/plaintiff not to take unnecessary adjournments; pending I.As in the petition stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25.02.2026 dismissing I.A.No.VIII (application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.133/2019) ought to be quashed/set aside. +2 more

Court's answer

The order dated 25.02.2026 passed on I.A.No.VIII in O.S.No.133/2019 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at KGF, Kolar is set aside and consequently I.A.No.VIII is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The amendments sought are necessary in the light of the documents placed by the defendant before the Trial Court, and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the amendment is allowed.

Key takeaways

The delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff in seeking the amendment can be balanced by imposing costs rather than by dismissing the application.ratio¶40
The defendant is at liberty to file an additional written statement.ratio¶47
Considering the delay in filing the amendment application, the petitioner/plaintiff shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Amendment of plaint — Order VI Rule 17 CPC — Inconsistent pleas — Delay and laches — Costs. The plaintiff's 2019 suit (O.S.No.133/2019) for mandatory injunction was at the evidence stage when he sought amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, relying on a Sale Deed dated 05.09.1907 produced by the defendant, after perusing which he learnt that the correct measurement of the defendant's property is 23 feet in width. The Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.VIII by order dated 25.02.2026, holding that the amendment took an inconsistent plea: the plaint had described the suit wall as a common wall, whereas the amendment sought a declaration that the western wall exclusively belongs to the plaintiff together with prohibitory injunction, and inconsistent pleas are not permissible in the plaint. Allowing the writ petition, the High Court held that the amendments were necessary in light of the documents placed by the defendant before the Trial Court and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant; the plaintiff's delay and laches could be balanced by imposing costs. The impugned order was set aside, I.A.No.VIII was allowed, the defendant was given liberty to file an additional written statement, costs of Rs.10,000/- were imposed on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was directed not to take unnecessary adjournments.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35679 WP No. 11648 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 11648 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. R.V.AMARESH, S/O LATE R.A. VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1061, ADI NARAYANA NILAYA, RAJA HANUMAPPA SETTY ROAD, BANGARPET - 563 114.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU B.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. T.V.MAHADEV, S/O VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, M.G. FASHIONS, KUVAMPU CIRCLE, RAJA HANUMAPPA SETTY ROAD, BANGARPET - 563 114, KOLAR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.NISHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2026 PASSED ON IA NO.VIII ON OS NO. 133/2019 BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35679 WP No. 11648 of 2026

HC-KAR

AND JMFC AT KGF SITTING AT BANGARPET I.E. ANNX-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the Order dated 25.02.2026 passed on I.A. No.VIII in OS No.133 of 2019 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC at KGF, Kolar, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

2. The plaintiff herein has filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the year 2019. When the matter was set down for evidence, the present application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), seeking amendment of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff's case is that, at the time of filing the suit, he was unaware of the Sale Deed dated 05.09.1907. He came to know of it only when the defendant produced it before the Trial Court. After verifying the said Sale Deed, he learnt that the correct measurement of the defendant's property is 23 feet in width. The vendor who sold him 25.6 feet is highly illegal,

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35679 WP No. 11648 of 2026

HC-KAR

and he wanted to amend the written statement based on subsequent facts that came to his notice after the written statement was filed, along with the documents that were rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order. While dismissing the application, the Trial Court observed that a perusal of the proposed amendment reveals that the plaintiff intends to add some paragraphs to the plaint to the effect that after the purchase of the property by his great-grandfather in the year 1907, there was a partition in the year 1993, and after the partition, Raja Adinarayana Setty erected a lengthy wall separating his property. The plaintiff also intends to seek additional relief, namely, a declaration that the western wall of the suit schedule property exclusively belongs to the plaintiff. In addition, he also seeks a prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from touching or using the said wall as a common wall. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the plaintiff intends to take an inconsistent plea in his plaint, inasmuch as he has already pleaded in the plaint that the suit wall is a common wall between him and the defendant, but now, by way of amendment, he intends to plead that the suit wall exclusively belongs to him. However, such inconsistent pleas

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35679 WP No. 11648 of 2026

HC-KAR

are not permissible in the plaint. Accordingly, the I.A. was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that, based on the document filed by the defendant, the plaintiff is coming up with the present amendment and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, only on the ground that, as it is specifically pleaded that the document is not in the possession of the plaintiff, he has taken the earlier plea. Now, the very document relied on by the defendant makes it clear about the measurements and description. It is submitted that, while dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint, the Court has to look at the substantial interest of the parties and should not dismiss the same on technicalities.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the suit is of the year 2019. He filed a written statement in the year 2021, and from 2021 till 19.11.2025, the plaintiff has kept quiet. In fact, it is submitted that he has been dragging on the matters for one reason or the other and has taken 13 adjournments for leading the evidence. This clearly shows that, only with an intention to protract the proceedings,

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35679 WP No. 11648 of 2026

HC-KAR

the petitioner/plaintiff has come up with this kind of application, and the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. The entire basis for this amendment sought by the plaintiff is the written statement and the documents filed by the defendant. On that basis, these additional pleadings are sought. It is also a fact that, while these documents were placed on record between 2021 and 2025, the petitioner/plaintiff has remained silent. From the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant, it appears that he has taken 13 adjournments to lead evidence, which prima facie shows that the petitioner/plaintiff is trying to protract the proceedings. But at the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that these amendments are very much necessary in the light of the documents placed by the defendant before the Trial Court, and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if this amendment is allowed. However, for the delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff, the same can be balanced by imposing costs. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35679 WP No. 11648 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The Order dated 25.02.2026 passed on I.A.No.VIII in O.S.No.133/2019 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at KGF, Kolar, is set

aside and consequently, I.A.No.VIII is allowed.

ii. The defendant is at liberty to file additional written statement.

iii. Considering the delay on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in filing this application, he shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/to the respondent.

iv. The petitioner/plaintiff shall not take unnecessary adjournments.

v. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

vi. Pending IA.s in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MKM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27