Dismissed¶70

Smt. Lakshmamma v. Smt. Kanthamma

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2026WP/15729/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; post-trial amendment; due diligence proviso; belated application at arguments stage; laches; non-vigilant litigant; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ in nature of certiorari; Karnataka High Court; Lalitha Kanneganti J.; O.S. No.226/2011; Ramanagara; IA No.8; declaration and possession suit; partition suit decree; defendant No.2 written statement; DW2 examination; writ petition dismissed

What did the court decide?

After the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, post-trial amendments cannot be allowed unless and until it is shown and proved that, in spite of due diligence, the facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest. ¶61

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Smt. Kanthamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/plaintiff's application (IA No.8) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint — to plead that a partition suit referred to in defendant No.2's written statement was decreed without notice to her — should be allowed at the stage of arguments, after trial had commenced in a suit of 2011.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

¶61

Key takeaways

The Court shall not come to the rescue of a litigant who is not vigilant; a party who had knowledge of the relevant facts from 2013 and kept quiet for 11 years cannot, during the course of evidence, be permitted to amend pleadings that would be advantageous to him or to cover up his laches.ratio¶61
Allowing the amendment at this stage would change the entire issues and the evidence already adduced, would prejudice the defendant, and valuable judicial time cannot be permitted to be wasted in this manner; accordingly the High Court found no reasons to interfere with the Trial Court's order dismissing IA No.8.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S. No.226/2011 (suit of 2011 for declaration and possession, Ramanagara) challenging the order dated 11.03.2025 rejecting her IA No.8 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, so as to plead that a partition suit referred to in defendant No.2's written statement was decreed without notice to her. The application was filed after trial had commenced and at the stage of arguments, following reopening of the case at the defendant's behest. Held, dismissing the petition: after the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, post-trial amendments require proof that, in spite of due diligence, the facts could not have been brought to the Court's notice earlier; the plaintiff knew the facts from 2013 yet kept quiet for 11 years, and a non-vigilant litigant cannot be rescued by the Court; allowing the amendment would alter the framed issues and the evidence already recorded, prejudice the defendants and waste judicial time. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15729 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE K. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2E, BANGALORE DAIRY QUARTERS, DRC POST, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE K. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.53, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, VIDHANASOUDHA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶15

SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O R. BASAVARAJU, D/O LATE K. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARASANNAPALYA VILLAGE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SHANAMANGALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI -562 109. RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶19

SMT. PUSHPAVATHI 3. W/O CHANDRAHASA, D/O LATE K. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.53, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, VIDHANASOUDHA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶20

SRI. K. GOPAL S/O LATE KENCHAPPA @ KENCHAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODIYALA KARENAHALLY VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI - 562 109. RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶21

SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O K. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶22

SRI NARAYANA S/O K. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O K. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. VASANTHA S/O K. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

SRI. K. DANAKARNA S/O LATE KENCHAPPA @ KENCHAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶28

SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O K. DANAKARNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶29

KUM. CHAITHRA D/O K. DANAKARNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶30

MSTR. CHANDAN S/O K. DANAKARNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶31

RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT KODIYALA KARENAHALLY VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI - 562 109 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶32

SMT. PRAGADA MYDULA W/O PRAGADA PRAVEENKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHWINI FORMS, DODDAKAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, GOTTIGERE POST, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083.

¶33

SRI. VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE K. GOVINDAIAH,

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2E, BANGALORE DAIRY QUARTERS, DRC POST, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶37

SMT. PARVATHI W/O GOPALAKRISHNA, D/O LATE K. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3359, 2^ND STAGE, 40^TH CROSS, CHANDRA NAGAR, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2025 PASSED IN O.S. NO.226/2011 BY THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, REJECTING IA NO. 08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A, THEREBY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER.

¶40

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

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

Aggrieved by the order on IA No.8 passed in O.S.No.226/2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, dated 11.03.2025. The petitioner/plaintiff has before this Court.

¶45

The suit was filed in the year 2011 seeking declaration and possession against the defendants. In the said suit, the written statement was filed and after the trial had commenced and at the stage of arguments, based on the application filed by the defendant, again the case was reopened. Now the present application came to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. In the affidavit in support of the said IA, it is stated that, in the written statement, defendant No.2 has pleaded certain facts with regard to the partition suit filed by the defendant, which has been decreed. According to the plaintiff, no notice was given to him, and, without notice, such an order was passed. As such, he wants to bring those

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

pleadings on record, and he has come up with IA seeking amendment of the pleadings.

¶50

The Trial Court, by the order impugned, has dismissed the said application observing that the trial has commenced and when the stage is for arguments, the instant application came to be filed by the plaintiff No.1 to add the additional information as prayed in the application at a belated stage. Further, it is to be noted here that the counsel for the plaintiff also took up to canvass his arguments. Now, if the amendment is allowed, the entire nature of the suit will change, and moreover, the case comes under the more than 10-yearold case list. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the applicant is not diligent in conducting the case and accordingly dismissed the application.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of this amendment, the nature of the suit is not going to change, nor any prejudice would be caused to the defendants. It is submitted that due to lapses or a communication gap between the plaintiff and the advocate, this plea could not be taken up. They could not come up with this application at an

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

appropriate time. It is submitted that by imposing some costs, this application may be allowed by this Court. If this amendment is not allowed, it would cause a lot of prejudice to the plaintiff. The Trial Court has failed to consider all these aspects. Only on the ground that this is an old case, the Trial Court has dismissed the application. It is submitted that in the interest of justice, the application may be allowed.

¶55

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The suit is of the year 2011. This court has perused the affidavit. As per the affidavit, the petitioner came to know about the partition suit and other pending partition suits and the judgment and decree after the written statement was filed. No doubt the written statement was filed in the year 2013 itself. Right from 2013 till 2024, for 11 long years, the petitioner/plaintiff had kept quiet. Now it is submitted that after the matter was posted for argument, again at the behest of the defendant, it was reopened. Now it is coming up for examination of DW2. It is submitted that if this application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

is not able to appreciate for the reason, basing on the pleadings

¶60

of the parties, the Court has framed the issues. Basing on that, the evidence is let in.

¶61

During the course of evidence, the party feels that certain pleadings could have been taken and that would be advantageous to him and to cover up those laches, he cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings at any point of time. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, by allowing this pleading, the entire issues and the entire that is adduced before the Court till now would change. The Court shall not come to the rescue of a litigant who is not vigilant, after the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the post-trial amendments. Unless and until it is shown and proved that, in spite of due diligence, these facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the earliest, the Court cannot allow the amendments. This is a classic case where the facts which are in the knowledge of a party from the year 2013, for the best reasons known to him, he wants to amend the pleadings. As submitted, in the interest of justice or for avoiding the multiplicity of proceedings or whatsoever reason, these kinds of

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:32560 WP No. 15729 of 2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

applications cannot be allowed, and it would definitely prejudice

¶66

the case of the defendant, and also the valuable judicial time cannot be permitted to be wasted in this manner, and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order.

¶67