Sri. Jagannatha Vs Smt. Vijaya K Shetty

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 PASSED BY THE 3^RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:5634 WP No. 36558 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.75 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Shivamogga is directed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.26, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking incorporation of the additional pleadings and prayers was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶35

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration and injunction in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the respondents/defendants, after completion of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the instant application seeking to incorporate certain subsequent events and by way of amendment to the

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5634 WP No. 36558 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

prayer and pleadings in the plaint. The said application was opposed by the respondents/defendants interalia contending that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation and that the petitioner/plaintiff had not exercised due diligence in not seeking amendment within the meaning of the proviso contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and the various admissions given by the petitioner/ plaintiff in the evidence would be nullified if the proposed amendment was allowed. By the impugned order, the Trial court proceeded to reject I.A.No.26, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record will indicate

¶40

that the Trial Court has rejected the application, on two grounds, viz., that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence in not seeking proposed amendment prior to commencement of trial and that the proposed amendment

¶41

was barred by limitation. In this context, it is relevant to state that if the proposed amendment which seeks to

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5634 WP No. 36558 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

incorporate subsequent events that had allegedly transpired during the pendency of the suit is perused, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (i) L.C.Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B.Shivakumar AIR 2015

¶45

SC 3364 and (ii) Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayya Kannu & Others AIR 2002 SC 3369, I am of the view that the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed by directing that the 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 23.10.2025 by leaving open the question regarding limitation, to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, having regard to the principles governing amendment of pleadings as enunciated by the Apex Court in various judgments including the judgment in the case of (i) LIC Vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022)

¶46

16 SCC 1 (ii) Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & others 2024 INSC 726, the

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5634 WP No. 36558 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.

¶50

In so far as the finding recorded by the Trial

¶51

Court that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence in not seeking amendment prior to commencement of trial, in the light of the principles laid down in Shri Mohammadrafi and Another Vs. Bandenawaz and Others - W.P.No.108512 of 2025 dated 16.12.2025,

¶52

even this finding recorded by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside. At any rate, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants who would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all defences, including the defence of limitation, which can be considered by the Trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶53

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting amendment as occasioned failure of

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5634 WP No. 36558 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Hence, I pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶59

ii) The impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.26 in O.S.No.75 of 2014 by the III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga is hereby set aside.

¶60

iii) The application/I.A.No.26 for amendment stands 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 23.10.2025 and the question of limitation is left open to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶61

iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to file additional written statement to the amended

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5634 WP No. 36558 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

plaint and take up all defences including the defence of limitation.

¶65

v) The petitioner/plaintiff is directed to carry out amendment and file amended plaint in the suit on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court, along with fresh valuation slip.

¶66

vi) Upon the petitioner/plaintiff carrying on amendment and filing amended plaint, the respondents/defendants shall file additional written statement within a period of two weeks from that date.

¶67

vii) Immediately upon the respondents/defendants filing additional written statement, the Trial Court shall frame additional issues and proceed further in the matter.

¶68

viii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both sides to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence, in support of their respective claims to

¶69