Mandya Jilla Kurubara Sangha Vs Puttaswamy

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 36098 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANDYA JILLA KURUBARA SANGHA PRO-SANGHA M.C.ROAD, MANDYA -571401 A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHASHIDHARA M J, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, C/O.JAYEGOWDA, MARATIKOPPALU, BUKANAKERE HOBLI, GANJIGERE, MANDYA-571 812.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by (BY SRI. RAVI H.K.,ADVOCATE) MAHALAKSHMI B M AND: Location: HIGH PUTTASWAMY COURT OF KARNATAKA S/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-571 405.

¶10

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.N.UMASHANKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

¶11

2 -

¶12

NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.11.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED ON I.A. NO. XI IN O.S. NO. 537/2011 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE SAID I.A.NO. XI VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

This petition by the defendant in O.S. No.537/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya is directed against the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed on I.A. No.XI, whereby the said application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶20

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶21

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner/defendant, both parties went to trial and after completion of oral and documentary evidence and at the stage of final arguments, the respondent/plaintiff filed the instant application seeking conversion of the suit by incorporating the prayers for declaration and recovery of possession. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the application by holding as under:

¶25

“ORDERS ON I.A NO XI U/O 6 RULE 17 OF CPC

¶26

The plaintiff has filed applications U/o.6 rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint.

¶27

2. In the affidavit enclosed to the application it is stated that the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the dispute between the parties. It is stated that proposed para is not pleaded in the plaint. This suit is for permanent injunction against the Defendant, but the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, Thus, this application filed by the plaintiff. If the application is not allowed and amendment is not carried out, the plaintiff will be put to greater hardship. On the other hand if the application is allowed no hardship will be caused to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed to allow the application.

¶28

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

3. The defendant has filed objections denying the allegations in the affidavit. The application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and also cause of action. The defendant has stated that the proposed amendment is nothing but an afterthought of the plaintiff and the plaintiff who has filed ingenious suit to grab the property and this application is filed only to drag the proceedings. Hence, the defendant is prayed to reject the application.

¶31

4. Heard arguments. Perused the records.

¶32

5. Following points arises for the consideration of this

¶33

court:

¶34

POINTS

¶35

1. Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to allow the amendment ?

¶36

2. What order ?

¶37

6. My answer to the above point in the Affirmative for following

¶38

Point No.1 : Affirmative

¶39

Point No.2 : As per final order

¶40

for the following :

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

R E A S O N S

¶45

7.Point No.1 :- The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent Injunction of the suit property. The present pleadings sought to be amended, The prayer of the application, inserting to the plaint para No. ( CC ) and D prayer column in plaint. The advocate for the defendant has filed objection to IA and opposed for allowing the application on the ground that there is delay in filing the application on the ground of limitation. Even though, this suit was filed in the year 2011 and the defendant filed the Written Statement in the year 2011. The issues were framed in the year 2021. Now the stage is posted for arguments. Now when the case is posted for the plaintiff side arguments, at this stage the plaintiff filed this application.

¶46

8. Even though, the amendment can be allowed at any stage, but after commencement of the evidence the amendment can not be allowed unless the parties have not aware about the facts. But now the amendment which sought by the plaintiff is regarding to declaration of title and recovery of possession. This suit is filed by the plaintiff is for the relief of prohibitory Injunction. The present pleadings sought to be amended, the prayer of the application, inserting paras to the plaint. the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff, thus he seeks these amendment, Hence the plaintiff wants change the suit nature into declaration of the title and he wants to recover the possession of the suit property as per the amendment.

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

9. The proposed amendment will not cause any loss or injustice to the defendant. This will change the nature of the proceedings, but it will not cause any inconvenience to the defendant, thus this application is allowed on subject to condition with respect to the limitation of the suit and it shall not relate back to the date of the suit. On perusal of the objections of the defendant, the defendant is also denied the title of the Schedule property of the plaintiff. Hence if the amendment application is not allowed it will again lead to the another ground of litigation. In order to avoid further litigation between the parties, When the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff and not seeks the possession of the plaintiff's over the suit property, the suit for prohibitory injunction is itself not maintainable, as there is cloud is caused on the title of the plaintiff. Hence this court feel it just and proper to allow the application subject to payment of cost payable to the defendant, so that, should be compensated by way of costs. Hence, I answered the above point in the Affirmative .

¶50

10. Point No.2 :- In view of the answer to point No.1, I will proceed to pass the following :-

¶51

O R D E R The IA No.XI filed by the plaintiff U/Order VI rule 17 of C.P.C is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.500/-.

¶52

The plaintiff is permitted to carry out amendment as sought in the application. For amendment and amended plaint.”

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

As can be seen from the impugned order, the Trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment was necessary and relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. Insofar as the impugned order permitting conversion of a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor by incorporating additional prayers for declaration and recovery of possession is concerned, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is in conformity/consonance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of (i) Sampathkumar Vs. Ayyakannu and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369 and (ii) L.C. Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B. Shivakumar reported in AIR 2015 SC 3364, wherein it is held that such an amendment is permissible by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the amendment application being filed on 02.09.2025 and by leaving open the contention regarding limitation to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order permitting amendment is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of (i) Life

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and others reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 (ii) Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others reported in 2024 INSC 726 and the recent judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and others Vs. Bandenawaz and others in W.P.

¶60

No.108512/2025 .

¶61

In any event, since the petitioner would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions, including the defence of limitation, it cannot be said that any prejudice could be caused to the petitioner if the amendment is allowed and consequently, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P. Natarajan and Another Vs. Muthalammal & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 3443 and (iii) Mohamed Ali Vs. Jaya & Ors. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

has resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition, which deserves to be disposed of by issuing certain directions:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.

¶68

ii. The application – I.A. No.XI filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for amendment is allowed subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the amendment application which was filed on 02.09.2025 and the question of limitation is kept open to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit.

¶69

iii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation.

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:7517 WP No. 36098 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

iv. All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter including limitation is kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶74

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶75

MBM

¶76

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Mandya Jilla Kurubara Sangha v. Puttaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandya Jilla Kurubara Sangha v. Puttaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Kalappa Vs the Pdo

N B Viswanatha Vs City Institute

Smt. Jagadamba Vs Sri. Manjunatha

Indramma Vs Nagamma

Kum.H.Supriya Vs S Krishnappa

Mr.Dani C.N. Vs Smt.L.Nagarathna