Plaintiff sought to amend plaint boundary description and add relief for rectification deed during appeal against a decreed injunction suit. The High Court upheld rejection, holding post-trial amendments require due diligence and cannot change the suit's nature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 14941 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 26.03.2026 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 65/2023 REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GUNDLUPET IN PRODUCED AS ANNX-G CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED
HC-KAR
BY THE PETITIONER FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT SCHEDULE. AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT 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 26.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.II filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in R.A.No.65/2023, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.
HC-KAR
and further seeks a direction against the defendant to execute the rectification deed in her favour. Though the amendment is projected as a correction of the boundary description, the surrounding circumstances and material on record disclose otherwise. It is observed that the original suit was filed seeking permanent injunction, describing the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 12.03.2003. The said description, including the southern boundary, shows “Road”, has been pleaded, and the suit was decreed. It is observed that the objection of the appellant reveals that the respondent has constructed a house over the suit property, which was not disclosed in the plaint which shows that the respondent approached the trial Court without placing the true and complete facts and obtained a decree on that basis.
HC-KAR
boundaries. This subsequent development casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the application. The amendment sought is not a mere clerical or typographical correction. On the contrary, it directly affects the identity, extent and physical status of the suit property. Such an amendment would materially alter the nature of the case and the foundation on which the original decree was granted. The Appellate Court observed that the proposed amendment is not a simple correction but seeks to alter the boundary and physical status of the property. Further, the suit is originally for permanent injunction; now the plaintiff seeks issuance of directions against the defendant for execution of a rectification deed in her favour. The Appellate Court observed that, more importantly, in a suit for permanent injunction, where the relief is confined to the protection of possession based on a specific property description, any amendment altering the boundary at the appellate stage would effectively introduce a new case and disturb the basis of the decree already passed. Hence, the same is not permissible, and the Appellate Court had rejected the I.A.No.II.
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
01.02.2023. Thereafter, the appeal was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, the present application was filed. Now, the plaintiff seeks to change the boundaries and also to direct the defendant to execute the rectification deed. As rightly observed by the Appellate Court, this amounts to changing the nature of the suit. At this stage, after almost 20 years, and seeking change of boundaries at the appellate stage, the Appellate Court rightly considered the reasons stated by the petitioner and dismissed the application. The Courts cannot allow a party to amend the pleadings in a manner that changes the nature of the suit and introduces a new case. The process of entertaining this amendment petition is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to see that the dispute between the parties is settled, and to put a quietus to the litigation. But it does not mean that each and every application for amendment has to be allowed liberally. After the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, after the trial, any application that is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the burden lies on the party to aver and prove that, in spite of due diligence, these aspects could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest point of time. In this case, the sale deed is of the year 2003, the suit is of the
NC: 2026:KHC:31975 WP No. 14941 of 2026
HC-KAR
year 2019, and the decree is passed in the year 2023. At this stage, this kind of application, which will alter the nature of the suit itself, cannot be entertained, and the Appellate Court rightly rejected the application, and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint schedule boundary at the appellate stage.
Whether an amendment changing property boundaries and seeking a rectification deed alters the nature of a suit for permanent injunction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Shivamma
R.C. Srinivasamurthy
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
