Plaintiff in a declaration and possession suit sought amendment of plaint boundaries per rectification deeds executed during pendency of an earlier appeal; trial Court rejected the application after evidence on limitation issues was recorded. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding no error justifying interference under Article 227.
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:3298 W.P. No.36028/2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.36028/2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH G. SHEIT SON OF GANAPATHI SHEIT AGED 58 YEARS R/O. 3RD CROSS, C.M.C. QUARTERS GARDEN AREA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM
Location: High Court Of Karnataka
(BY SRI. ARVIND C. DESAI, ADV.,)
AND:
K.S. MANJUNATHA S/O SHETTY SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O. KACHINAKATTA VILLAGE TQ. AND DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577222
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SACHIN KUMAR B.M. ADV.,)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7-12-2024 PASSED ON I. A NO. VIII, UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF C.P.C., IN O. S. NO.109/2008, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT SHIVAMOGGA, ANNEXURE-K BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2026:KHC:3298 W.P. No.36028/2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"a) Quash the order dated 07.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.VIII, under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, in O.S.No.109/2008, pending on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., at Shivamogga, under Annexure-'K' by issue of Writ of Certiorari.
b) To issue such other writ order or direction as may be deemed fit to issue in the circumstances of this case including an order as to cost in the interest of justice and equity."
HC-KAR
assailed the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2013 in R.A.No.91/2014 and the Appellate Court again remanded the matter back to the trial Court by setting aside the judgment and decree. It is further submitted that the petitioner challenged the order of remand i.e., judgment and decree dated 05.11.2015 passed in RA.No.91/2024 in MSA.No.73/2016 and this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024 upheld the remand order with certain directions. It is also submitted that after remand, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint to correct the boundaries as per the rectification deeds executed by the vendor in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the MSA.No.73/2016 which came to be rejected by the trial Court on erroneous finding. It is contented that the trial Court has recorded the finding that the application is filed belatedly which is actually incorrect as the rectification deeds were executed on 20.07.2016 and 04.08.2016 and only after remand he could have sought for amendment of the plaint as per the rectification
NC: 2026:KHC:3298 W.P. No.36028/2024
HC-KAR
deeds. It is further contented that the petitioner may be permitted to correct his pleading by permitting the respondent/defendant to cross examine on the said issue and also by permitting him to file additional written statement and permitting to cross examine the petitioner/plaintiff on the said issue. He seeks to allow the petition.
counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court by well reasoned order has rejected the application not only on the ground of delay, but it has recorded the finding that this Court while remanding the matter in MSA has permitted the trial Court to frame the additional issue on the limitation and timeline was fixed. It is submitted that after remand, the respondent/defendant adduced the evidence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief and got further examined, and thereafter, an application for amendment is
HC-KAR
sought which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.
by the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.2013. The judgment and decree dated 06.12.2013 of the trial Court was assailed by the respondent in
HC-KAR
RA.No.91/2014 and the Appellate Court, after hearing,
allowed the appeal and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. It is further noticed that the petitioner herein challenged the order of remand by the First Appellate Court dated 05.11.2015 in MSA.No.73/2016. This Court, vide order dated 30.07.2024 disposed of the MSA with the following directions:
"i) Miscellaneous second appeal stands disposed of by upholding the remand order. ii) However, the time is fixed for disposal of the case afresh in accordance with law till 31st of March 2025.
iii) It is made clear that the Trial Court is bound to frame the additional issue with regard to the limitation and then afford suitable opportunities to the parties and then pass judgment and decree in accordance with law.
iv) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 26th August 2024."
remand, filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint more particularly boundaries of the schedule 'A' and 'B' property on the ground that during the pendency of the
HC-KAR
MSA, the vendor of the petitioner rectified the boundaries in sale deed dated 22.04.1996 by executing the rectification deeds dated 20.07.2016 and 04.08.2016. Based on the said rectification deeds, an application is moved under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint which came to be rejected by the trial Court. It is further noticed that the trial Court at paragraph Nos.8 to 14 has recorded detailed reasons for rejection of the application. It is also noticed that this Court in MSA.No.73/2016 has fixed the timeline to dispose of the suit by directing to frame the additional issue. After remand, the trial Court issued notice to the plaintiff and defendant, and they entered appearance before the trial Court.
HC-KAR
same day, DW1 was examined and documents were marked. The said witness was cross-examined fully by the plaintiff on 30.09.2024. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on three occasions for the plaintiff's evidence on preliminary issue of limitation. On 06.11.2024, the plaintiff himself examined by filing an affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief and the matter was posted for crossexamination of PW1 and at this stage, an application for amendment was filed by the plaintiff. It is to be noticed that the rectification deeds were executed on 20.07.2016 and 04.08.2016, which were admittedly during the pendency of MSA.No.73/2016 and nothing prevented the petitioner from bringing the same to the notice of the Court and seeking leave of the Court to amend the pleadings in the said MSA while the matter was being remanded. Even after the remand, the petitioner has kept quiet for a number of hearing dates and filed an application for amendment of the pleading only after adducing evidence on the issue of limitation. This clearly
HC-KAR
indicates that the petitioner is not diligent in seeking amendment. However, the delay in seeking amendment cannot be a ground for rejection of the application for amendment of the plaint in all the cases. It is further noticed that after remand, the matter was proceeded further by recording the evidence. The trial Court has clearly recorded the finding that during the course of evidence, the questions were put on the boundaries and discrepancy of the boundaries and admissions were recorded between the parties. When the evidence is recorded with regard to the boundaries and admissions, it may not be appropriate at this stage to allow the application to amend the plaint, which would be used to overcome the admissions on record. The trial Court by well reasoned order has come to conclusion that the application is devoid of merit and rejected. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
NC: 2026:KHC:3298 W.P. No.36028/2024
HC-KAR
No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
1 issue framed by the court
Was the trial Court justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint boundaries based on post-suit rectification deeds?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramesh G. Sheit
K.S. Manjunatha
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
