Disposed¶67

Smt. Sowmya v. Sri. P. G. Sreehari

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WP/37223/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement — Order VI Rule 17 CPC — amendment sought at cross-examination stage of PW-1 — specific performance of contract — O.S.No.207/2019, Principal Civil Judge & JMFC Pavagada — amplification of existing pleadings — no prejudice as rejoinder permissible — Article 227/226 writ — LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (2022) 16 SCC 1 — Dinesh Goyal 2024 INSC 726 — Radhey Shyam (2015) 5 SCC 423 — K.P. Natarajan AIR 2021 SC 3443 — Mohd. Ali (2022) 10 SCC 477 — writ disposed without interference, rejoinder liberty, contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; liberty reserved to the petitioner-plaintiff to file rejoinder/reply to the amended written statement; all rival contentions kept open. ¶67

Smt. Sowmya Vs Sri. P. G. Sreehari — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly allowed I.A.No.II under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (amendment of written statement by respondent No.2/defendant No.2) sought at the cross-examination stage of PW-1 in O.S.No.207/2019. +3 more

¶31

Court's answer

The Trial Court correctly and properly considered the rival contentions and allowed the amendment application; the impugned order is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. (2022) 16 SCC 1 and Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) (2024 INSC 726).

¶59

Ratio / Principle

No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff by allowance of the amendment, since she would have an opportunity to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement.

¶59

Key takeaways

The proposed amendment merely amplifies the existing written statement averments, and the various contentions urged therein would necessarily have to be considered during the course of the trial.ratio¶59
The proposed amendment was not impermissible in law notwithstanding the contention that its substance was already pleaded.ratio¶59
The impugned order contains no illegality or infirmity and has not occasioned any failure of justice warranting interference under Article 227 (as held in Radhey Shyam (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali (2022) 10 SCC 477); the petition lacks merit and deserves to be disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.) — W.P. No. 37223 of 2025 (GM-CPC), decided 05.01.2026. Plaintiff-petitioner in O.S.No.207/2019 (specific performance of contract, Pavagada) challenged the Trial Court's order dated 30.10.2025 allowing respondent No.2/defendant No.2's I.A.No.II under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement — moved at the cross-examination stage of PW-1 to add pleas regarding seizure of the schedule property by the Lokayuktha and dismissal of the plaintiff's husband's suit O.S.No.83/2016. Held: the proposed amendment merely amplified existing written statement averments, whose contentions would be considered during trial; no prejudice to the plaintiff as she retained the opportunity to file a rejoinder; the Trial Court had correctly considered rival contentions and its order conformed to LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1 and Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal), 2024 INSC 726; the impugned order contained no illegality, infirmity or failure of justice warranting interference under Article 227, per Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan v. Muthalammal, AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali v. V. Jaya, (2022) 10 SCC 477 (all relied on). Petition disposed of without interference; liberty reserved to file rejoinder; rival contentions kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 37223 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SOWMYA S/O YALLENDRA BABU AGED 35 YEARS, R/AT KEB QUARTERS, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMAKURU DT. - 561 202. NOW R/AT GREEN LAYOUT, INDUPUR ROAD, OPP TO MS HOSPITAL, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMAKURU DT. - 561 202.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH.B.R,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. P. G. SREEHARI W/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. AMBIKA W/O P.G.SREEHARI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶15

BOTH ARE R/AT BANASHANKARI EXTENSION, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMAKURU DT. - 561 202.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS DIPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED:05.01.2026)

¶18

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION, SETTING-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2025 PASSED ON IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 AND DISMISS THE SAME IN O.S. NO.207/2019 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA (ANNEXURE-A).

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.207/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, whereby application I.A.No.II filed by the respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, service of notice to respondents is dispensed with.

¶27

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants who are none other than husband and wife for specific performance of contract in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The suit is contested by the respondents-defendants by filing their written statement. After framing of issues by the Trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

examined herself as PW-1 and at the stage of cross-examination of PW-1, the respondents filed an application I.A.No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of written statement, which culminated in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, which allowed I.A.No.II by holding as under:

¶32

ORDERS ON I.A.NO.II FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.2 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC

¶33

The counsel for defendant No.2 has filed IA No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for seeking permission to amend the written statement as contended in the application.

¶34

In the affidavit the defendant No.2 stated that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract the suit schedule property was seized by the Lokayuktha and there was a suit filed by the Yallendra Babu the husband of plaintiff in O.S.No.83/2016 which was dismissed. The said facts are not inserted in the written statement by oversight and now the said facts are necessary to insert in the proposed amendment in para No.3 after para No.2 in the written statement of defendants. Hence, prays to allow the application.

¶35

On the other hand counsel for plaintiff filed objection contended that it is a suit for specific performance of contract based on Agreement of Sale dated 19.03.2018 in respect of suit schedule property. The

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

plaintiff is already adduced her evidence and now posted for cross of PW.1, at this stage the defendants have filed application deliberately to amend the written statement. He application is not maintainable when the trial has been commenced. Hence, prays to reject the application.

¶40

Heard both.

¶41

The points arise for determination of this Court as follows:

¶42

1. Whether the defendant No.2 has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application?

¶43

2. What order?

¶44

My answer to the aforesaid points are as follows:

¶45

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following:

¶46

REASONS

¶47

Point No.1:- On going through the record, it is clear that when the matter was posted for Cross of PW.1, the counsel for defendants come up with present application for seeking amend to the written statement. The defendants contended that the schedule property has been seized by the Lokayuktha Police and there was a suit filed by the husband of plaintiff in O.S.No.83/2016

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada which was dismissed by the Court. The proceedings which initiated through one Gangadhara before Lokayuktha is pending. Therefore, the said pleadings are necessary to insert in the written statement. Further the sale agreement in this case is taken place in playing fraud and undue influence, coercion which acted by parties. Hence prays to allow the application. The said application objected by the counsel for plaintiff contended that the pleadings are not necessary as trial has been commenced.

¶52

On perusal of proposed amendment, it is clear that it is the facts narrated by the defendants with regarding pendency of Civil suit and pendency of proceedings before the Lokayuktha the said facts are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. If the application is allowed no hardship and no new cause of action arise to the plaintiff case. On the other hand, if the application is rejected definitely it leads to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, considering above facts and circumstances, the application filed by the defendants is deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.

¶53

Point No.2:- In view of above assigned reasons, I proceed to pass the following;

¶54

ORDER

¶55

I.A.No.II filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.2,000/-.”

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered the rival contentions and allowed the application and as such, the impugned order is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., - (2022) 16 SCC 1 and Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726. It also relevant to state that since the petitioner – plaintiff would have an opportunity to file the rejoinder to the amended written statement, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff, if the application filed by respondent No.2-defendant No.2 was allowed by the Trial Court. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitionerplaintiff that the proposed amendment was not necessary since the same was already pleaded in the original written statement is concerned, it is relevant to state that apart from the fact that the proposed amendment merely seeks to amplify the existing written statement averment, the various contentions urged in the proposed amendment would necessarily have to be considered during the course of the trial and as such, it cannot be said that the proposed amendment was impermissible in law.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:106 WP No. 37223 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to contain any illegality or infirmity nor has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be disposed of without interfering in the impugned order.

¶64

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petition may be disposed of without interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions.

¶65