The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order allowing amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Finding no illegality or failure of justice, the Court dismissed the petition without interfering.
Writ petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; liberty reserved for additional written statement.
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.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30574 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AISHWARYA HEGDE M.V., ADVOCATE AND SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE COMMON ORDER DATED 02.08.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN O.S. NO. 688/2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the defendant in O.S. No.688/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.08.2025, whereby the application IA No. 2 filed by the respondent - plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the trial Court by holding as under -
" The I.A. No.II filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC is allowed. Accordingly, the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint by deleting the word "unauthorized" from paragraph Nos.5 and 22 of the plaint.
The counsel for the plaintiff is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the office within 14 days in the office from the date of this order."
appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same is in conformity with well settled principles of law governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and a co-ordinate Bench of this
HC-KAR
Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025 , and the impugned order cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors v Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423; K.P. Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443; Mohd. Ali v V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is disposed of without
interfering with the impugned order.
(ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the
petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint.
Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order allowing amendment of plaint.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd.Relied on¶25
LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd.
Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors.Relied on¶25
Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors.
Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and OrsRelied on¶28
Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025
Radhey Shyam and Ors v Chhabi Nath and OrsReferred¶28
Radhey Shyam and Ors v Chhabi Nath and Ors
K.P. Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and OrsReferred¶28
K.P. Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors
Mohd. Ali v V. JayaReferred¶28
Mohd. Ali v V. Jaya
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. VENKATA SHIVA ASHA AKULA
SRI INDAR KUMAR
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
