Smt. v. Lalitha Vs Sri. K. H. Puttaswamy Gowda

SMT. V. LALITHA, W/O C. HARISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.77/18, SRI. DURGA NILAYA, PALLEKAMMA NAGAR ROAD, CHIKKAJALA, BEHIND DECATHLON SPORTS MALL, CHIKKAJALA, BENGALURU – 562 157

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAMESHA T.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. K. H. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, S/O HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 586, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 086

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 11.03.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 16870/2006 BY HONBLE

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31979 WP No. 12122 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

74^TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-75) CONCURRENT CHARGE-CCH-22 (XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU) ON I.A.NO. 2/2024 BY DISMISSING THE I.A. WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A. AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.II in O.S.No.16870/2006 by the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

¶25

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.16870/2006 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Mayohall, at Bengaluru, seeking injunction. The defendant filed his written statement. On 18.08.2018, the trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner herein preferred Regular First Appeal before this Court in RFA.No.1774/2018. That appeal was allowed by judgment and decree dated 02.02.2023, and the case was remanded observing that the judgment and decree, to

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31979 WP No. 12122 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the extent of refusing to grant a declaration in respect of the suit schedule property, be set aside, and direction was issued for speedy disposal of the suit in accordance with law. After the remand of the case in the year 2023, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got one document marked as Ex.P27. On 17.11.2023, the defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment to the written statement. On 02.12.2023, the trial Court allowed the said I.A. and permitted the defendant to file the amended written statement. Accordingly, the defendant carried out the amendment and filed the amended written statement. On 16.10.2024, the defendant led his evidence through his SPA holder and had documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D17. Thereafter, on 14.11.2024, instead of leading further evidence, the defendant filed an application to amend the written statement with a new plea. The trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the application and permitted the defendant to amend the written statement. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:31979 WP No. 12122 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was cross-examined fully, thereafter he was examined as DW.1, and marked Ex.D1 to D17, and the matter was posted for further cross-examination of the defendant. At that point of the time, it was noticed that the BDA had reconveyed the said property in favour of the defendant by issuing allotment letter, sale deed, and a possession certificate. These documents are very vital and crucial documents to prove the case. Accordingly, the defendant has filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement, which will not result in injustice to the plaintiff, will not change the nature of the suit, and will not cause any hardship to the parties.

¶33

While allowing the application, the trial Court has observed that the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties, as the title is in dispute before the Court. When such is the fact, the proposed amendment is very much necessary to adjudicate the matter effectively between the parties. Only on the ground that the defendant's evidence has commenced and he has given evidence by way of chief examination, if the application is

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31979 WP No. 12122 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

rejected, the dispute between the parties cannot be finally adjudicated. Even if this application is rejected, nothing prevents the defendant from filing another suit seeking an injunction and declaration in respect of the schedule property. If this application is not allowed, it leads to multiplicity of proceedings. In order to decide the disputes involved between the parties and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is necessary to allow the application, and accordingly, I.A.No.II was allowed.

¶37

Learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is of the year 2006, was decreed in the year 2018, and the matter was remanded by the High Court. Earlier, one application was filed seeking an amendment, which was allowed. Now, again, another application was filed on 14.11.2024. The suit of 2006 is still pending in the year 2024, and the defendant is coming up with successive applications one after the other. It is submitted that after the amendment to the CPC, any amendment after

¶38

the trial cannot be allowed unless and until it is pleaded and proceed that, despite due diligence, these facts could not be

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:31979 WP No. 12122 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest. Before the trial Court, the defendant had relied on several judgments. It is submitted that the trial Court has failed to apply the ratio laid down to the facts of the case, and that the defendant cannot be permitted to amend the written statement, by which the nature of the suit itself will change, and that the same is impermissible. It is submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/

¶43

defendant submits that the defendant has clearly stated in the affidavit that after the remand, when the matter was posted for further examination of the defendant, at that point of time, the counsel intimated to him to bring all the original documents in respect of the property in question. At that time, the defendant searched his office and found the documents pertaining to the written statement schedule property in the old almirah. At that time, it was noticed that the BDA had reconveyed the said property in favour of the defendant by issuing re-allotment letter, sale deed and possession certificate. Immediately, he took the said documents to the office of the advocate and

¶44

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:31979 WP No. 12122 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

handed over the same. Accordingly, the defendant has come up with the application. It is submitted that the petitioner, by way of this amendment, is not setting up any new plea or introducing any new case, and the trial Court has rightly held that, for the substantial interest of justice, the trial Court has allowed the I.A. seeking amendment, which is very crucial for deciding the dispute involved in the case.

¶47

Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent, perused the material on record. When an application is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, particularly after remand in a suit filed in the year 2006, the trial Court has to see whether the application for amendment is filed at a belated stage, whether it changes the nature of the suit, whether the petitioner, by virtue of this amendment, is introducing a new case, whether any prejudice would be caused to the other side, and whether the amendment is necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

¶48

This Court has perused the plaint and the written statement. Considering the nature of disputes between the

¶49

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:31979 WP No. 12122 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

petitioner and the respondent, the documents which the defendant is relying upon are crucial for deciding the dispute between the parties. To give finality to the litigation and considering that the title is in dispute, the trial Court has rightly felt that those documents are essential for deciding the dispute between the parties, there cannot be any blanket rule or proposition for allowing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. However, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the defendant has made out reasonable grounds to allow this application seeking amendment of the written statement. The trial Court has also rightly given cogent reasons for allowing the application. But at the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that the defendant has filed this application at a belated stage. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that by imposing the costs on the defendant, it can be balanced. It would be in the interest of both the parties. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:

¶52