Pebble Bay Owners Association Vs Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2017 WP No. 39299 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 39299 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PEBBLE BAY OWNERS ASSOCIATION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT A-11, 1^ST MAIN, DOLLARS COLONY, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 094. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPERTY MANAGER, MR. RAJKUMAR DASS (DECLARED REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT, 1972)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMESH T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

MR SUNIL KUMAR NAHAR SON OF MR. GAUTAM NAHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22, PANCHAVATI, 18^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 055

¶14

MR. AKASH KUMAR NAHAR, SON OF MR. GAUTAM NAHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAHAR MANSION, 1044 C CROSS, PIPELINE YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE – 560 055,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. SUNIL KUMAR NAHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22 PANCHAVATI, 18^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 055

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, SMT. NIKITHA SURABHI, SMT. PRANATHI S., AND SMT. LOCHANA KHATRI, ADVOCATES)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:2017 WP No. 39299 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 (A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE LEARNED X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH 26) ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.6 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CPC IN O.S. NO. 4567 OF 2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS I.A. NO.6.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.4567/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH26) (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the application, I.A.No.6 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for permission to amend the plaint and for incorporating additional pleadings and prayers was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:2017 WP No. 39299 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner-defendant, the matter was posted for plaintiffs’ evidence, prior to commencement of which the respondents-plaintiffs filed the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of plaint by incorporating/adding additional prayers together with corresponding pleadings in this regard. The said application was opposed by the petitionerdefendant on various grounds including contending that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation. By the impugned order, the Trial Court proceeded to allow the amendment application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation and was neither relevant nor necessary to adjudicate the issues in controversy between the parties and that the Trial Court committed an error in allowing the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2017 WP No. 39299 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

proposed amendment. It is also submitted that since the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was rejected by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court, the respondents-plaintiffs would not be entitled to seek amendment of plaint on this ground also and the Trial Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the amendment is related to subsequent events that occurred during the pendency of the suit which necessitated the amendment of plaint as sought for in the amendment application. It is submitted that merely because the request of temporary injunction was rejected by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court, the said circumstance has no nexus or connection whatsoever, for consideration of an application for amendment, which is otherwise permissible in law. It is also submitted that the proposed amendment is not barred by limitation and the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application by passing the impugned order,

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:2017 WP No. 39299 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶39

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶40

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the first instance, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs, which was subsequently sought to be converted into a suit seeking additional reliefs by way of amendment. In this context, a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application will indicate that the proposed amendment relates to subsequent events that are alleged to have transpired/occurred during the pendency of the suit. Though the various contentions and averments made in the proposed amendment are refuted/disputed by the petitioners, it is well settled that the legality, correctness and merits/demerits of the proposed amendment would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court during the course of trial and not at the stage of considering an application for amendment as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors – AIR 2006 SC 1647 .

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:2017 WP No. 39299 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary to adjudicate upon the issues in controversy involved in the suit, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors -– AIR 2022 SC 4256, I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application by passing the impugned order.

¶45

Insofar as the contention urged by the petitionerdefendant that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation is concerned, in the light of decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and LIC Vs. Sanjeev Builders private Limited (supra) , I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be modified by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date on which amendment application was filed i.e., on 29.01.2025 and by leaving the question of imitation open to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit.

¶46

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:2017 WP No. 39299 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Insofar as the contention that temporary injunction was

¶49

refused by the Trial Court and the said order of the Trial Court was confirmed by this Court is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, mere rejection of an application for temporary injunction and confirmation of the same by this Court could not be made basis for the Trial Court to reject the amendment application and as such, even this contention cannot be accepted. At any rate, since the petitioner would be entitled to file their additional written statement to the amended plaint and put forth all defences including the defence of limitation, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if amendment is permitted, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – ( 2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya

¶50

– (2022) 10 SCC 477

¶51

In the result, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The petition is disposed of by modifying the

¶54

impugned order.

¶55

8 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:2017 WP No. 39299 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(ii) The application for amendment, I.A.No.VI filed by the plaintiffs stands allowed, subject to the condition that the proposed amendment as allowed by the Trial Court shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from 29.01.2025 i.e., from the date on which I.A.No.VI was filed and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court.

¶59

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

¶60

(iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶61

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶62

BMC

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Pebble Bay Owners Association v. Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pebble Bay Owners Association v. Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar

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 Ishwar S Kadakol Vs Smt. H v Kalapana

Sri D Prabhudeva Vs Smt. Y B Divyasaraswathi

M/S Madhuban Hotels Private Limited Vs National Housing Cooperative Society Limited

Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka by

Regional Institute of Co-Operative Management Vs National Institute for Rural Banking

Smt v Srimathi Bai Vs Sri K v Puttegowda