Allowed¶69

Sri H N Narasimharaju v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2026WP/15134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; proviso and due diligence after commencement of trial; Article 227 writ petition; Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011; transfer of suit to and from Special Court; correction of extent of suit schedule property (acres, guntas, kharab); Land Grant Register Extract 1962; O.S.No.43/2010 Tumakuru; setting aside order dismissing amendment application; directions for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order dated 19.07.2022 set aside; application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment allowed; Trial Court requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously; parties bound down by counsel's statement that they will not take unnecessary adjournments; pending applications closed. ¶69

Sri H N Narasimharaju Vs the Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment on the ground that it was filed belatedly and mechanically to drag on the proceedings, without examining the pleadings and the history of transfers between the Civil Court and the Special Court. +1 more

¶62

Court's answer

The Trial Court's finding that the amendment application was filed mechanically to drag on the proceedings is unsustainable: the delay in adjudication was caused by the matter being filed before the Civil Court, transferred to the Special Court and thereafter transferred back, and the Trial Court ought to have examined the pleadings before passing such an order.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter was only transferred back from the Special Court in April 2022 and the petitioner filed the amendment application immediately thereafter, it cannot be said that the petitioner/plaintiff has not shown due diligence under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

¶68

Key takeaways

In any event, the only amendment sought is to set out the extent of land owned by the petitioner, which is necessary for the adjudication of the case.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 by the plaintiff in O.S.No.43/2010 (II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru) against the order dated 19.07.2022 dismissing his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint schedule. The suit, whose evidence was complete and which was posted for final arguments, had been transferred to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibitions Special Court upon commencement of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, and was transferred back to the Civil Court on 10.04.2022; the amendment application followed in July 2022. The Trial Court had rejected the amendment as belated and mechanical. Held: the inter-court transfers caused the delay and the Trial Court ought to have examined the pleadings; since the application was filed immediately after the April 2022 retransfer, absence of due diligence under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC could not be inferred; and the amendment, which confined the claim over the suit schedule property to 3 acres plus 20 guntas of kharab (a Land Grant Register Extract of 1962 showing the vendor was granted 3 acres, not 3 acres 20 guntas), was necessary for adjudication. Impugned Order set aside, amendment allowed, expeditious disposal requested; petition disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 15134 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. H.N NARASIMHARAJU S/O NARASIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A HIRETHOTLUKERE VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 128

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572101

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE TUMKURU SUB-DIVISION TUMKURU-572101

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR & TALUK MAGISTRATE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

TUMKUR TALUK TUMAKURU-572101

¶20

SRI K R RANGASWAMY S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/A KUCHANGI PALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMKURU TLAUK TUMKURU DIST-572101

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BOJEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, R5 SERVED)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 19.07.2022 PASSED ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.43/2010 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKURU AND THEREBY ALLOW I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.43/2010 AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated

¶28

19.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.43/2010 by learned II Addl.

¶29

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru (hereinafter

¶30

referred as ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court has been dismissed. The learned Trial Court has found that the case is one of the oldest cases and that the application has been filed at a belated stage.

¶35

None appears for Respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that Respondent No.5 is not a contesting respondent.

¶36

Given the pendency of the matter and the fact that stay of proceedings before the learned Trial Court was granted by this Court on 29.07.2022, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was initially filed before the Civil Court. Thereafter once the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 came into force, it was transferred to the Special Court under the Act. Subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court, the Tahsildar

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

transferred the matter from the Special Court back to the Civil Court on 10.04.2022.

¶42

Learned counsel further submits that he has in his amendment application set out the grounds for amendment. He further submits that the matter was transferred back to the Civil Court on 10.04.2022 and his application was filed immediately thereafter in July 2022. It is contended that the amendment is a minor one seeking clarification of the area of the suit schedule property is not 4 acres but 3 acres 20 guntas and kharab 20 guntas of kharab land.

¶43

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 does not dispute the fact that the suit was pending before the Special Court for several years. He also does not dispute the fact that the matter was transferred to the Civil Court on 10.04.2022.

¶44

The record reflects that no objection was filed before the learned Trial Court to the application filed by the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Respondents. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has set out in detail all these averments including the fact that when the matter was posted for final arguments. The matter was transferred to the Special Court under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act and was only transferred back in April 2022. The petitioner further sets out in his application that the petitioner had recently acquired title to a document in terms of which the title of the petitioner in the suit schedule is restricted to 3 acres 20 guntas of kharab land. The relevant extract part of the application filed in this behalf is set out below:

¶49

“2. I further submit that, when the matter was pending before the Civil Court at Tumkur, the evidence of both the parties were completed and the matter was posted for final argument. At this juncture, the Trial Court in view of the enactment of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 has transferred the above Court for disposal of this suit to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibitions Special Court, Bangalore.

¶50

3. I further submit that, at the time of I purchasing the suit schedule property the measurement of the schedule property was mentioned as 3 acres 20 gutnas (sic guntas) and kharab 20 guntas, totally 4 acres in the name of my vendor. At that point of time inspite of our best efforts we could not get the certified copy of the Great Certificate issued in favour of my vendor. As such we were under the impression thát 3

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

acres 20 guntas was granted in favour of my vendor. Accordingly we have shown 3 acres 20 guntas plus 20 guntas of kharab. At the time of instituting the above suit also we have mentioned the said measurement in the body of plaint as well as in the plaint schedule. The said mistake is not intentional and deliberate.

¶55

4. I further submit that, during the course of discussion on merits with my counsel at Bangalore to address our arguments in the above case before the Land Grabbing Court, my counsel has instructed me to verify the grant register extract maintained by the office of the Tahasildar, Tumkur Taluk for the particular period stating that, information may be available there with respect to the grant made in favour of my vendor/the 1" plaintiff in respect of the schedule property. Immediately, thereafter, I have approached the office of the Tahsildar, Tumkur and asked for relevant extract of the Land Grant Register.

¶56

5. The Thasilder has issued the certified copy of the Land Grant Register Extract relating to the land bearing Sy. No. No. 74 of Kuchangi Village, wherein it categorically noted that the land in question was granted to the 1 plaintiff way back in the year 1962 . However the extent of the land granted to my vendor is mentioned as 3 acres and not 3 acres 20 guntas as pleaded by us earlier in the plaint. I have obtained the said documents during the pendency of the above case before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibitions Special Court, Bangalore, Earlier it was not in my knowledge. The said document is very vital for the property and effective adjudication of the subject matter of the suit, as such it is already marked as exhibits in the above suit before Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibitions Special Court, Bangalore, since my vender i.e. 1^st Plaintiff had acquired the title through the said document . Under the said circumstances I cannot claim title over 3acres 20 gutnas (sic guntas) plus 20 gutnas (sic guntas) of kharab. I have to restrict my claim to 3 acres plus 20 gutnas (sic guntas) of kharab”.

¶57

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

However, the learned Trial Court without examining

¶62

these detail facts, in the Impugned Order merely sets out that the case is of the year 2010, the petitioner/plaintiff is filing applications to drag the proceedings instead of arguing the matter on merits. The only reason that is set out for rejection of the application in the Impugned Order, is that the application has been filed in a mechanical manner to drag on the proceedings.

¶63

This Court is unable to agree. The facts of the case that are available on record, clearly sets out that the matter was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the Civil Court then transferred to the Special Court and thereafter transferred back. This is the cause for delay in adjudication of the proceedings. The learned Trial Court ought to have examined the pleadings before passing such an order.

¶64

This Court is aware that ordinarily after commencement of the trial, an amendment cannot be allowed, unless the petitioner shows due diligence in terms

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. In the present case, however the petitioner/plaintiff has in the application which is reproduced above set out the reasons why an amendment is necessary for the case. Since the matter was only transferred back from Special Court in April 2022 and the petitioner has filed his application immediately thereafter, it cannot be said that the petitioner/plaintiff has not shown due diligence. In any event, the only amendment sought for is to set out the extent of land which is owned by the petitioner which is necessary for the adjudication of the present case.

¶69

In the aforegoing circumstances, the Impugned Order is set aside. The application for amendment is allowed. Given the fact that the matter has been pending for some time, the learned Trial Court is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶70

Learned counsel for the parties submit that they will not take any unnecessary adjournments. The parties are bound down by the statement made by their counsel.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:9851 WP No. 15134 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74