Dismissed¶57

B Narakesari v. N S Nataraju

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/9475/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; typographical/clerical mistake; withdrawal of admission; liberal allowance of pleadings amendments; real controversy; specific performance of agreement of sale; Article 227 writ petition (GM-CPC); Trial Court order dated 10.02.2026; I.A.No.X; O.S.No.359/2022; XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-3) Bengaluru; Karnataka High Court; WP No. 9475 of 2026; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The amendment sought is a typographical mistake and does not amount to taking away any of the admissions made; the Trial Court therefore rightly considered and allowed the amendment application. ¶53

B Narakesari Vs N S Nataraju — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 9475 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

B. NARAKESARI S/O LATE D. R. BHASHYAKAR, AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 19, 'THIRUMALA' 1^ST MAIN ROAD, R P C LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560040

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

N. S. NATARAJU, S/O LATE N C SHIVANNA, AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 7211, LION BHAVAN ROAD, T. B. NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY K R., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH- 3), BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.359/2022 WHEREBY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PLAINT AND CONSEQUENTLY, REJECT THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC. (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2026, passed on I.A.No.X in O.S.No.359/2022, on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-3), Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint, the defendant is before this Court.

¶26

2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. In the plaint, the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

plaintiff has given a table stating that what are the amounts

¶31

paid by him, which reads as under:

¶32

Sl. No.	Date	Amount	Cash/ Cheque	On Account of property No.
1	12.03.2013	65,00,000	Cash	18 & 19
2	12.03.2013	65,00,000	ICICI	19
3	12.03.2013	65,00,000	HDFC	18
4	12.03.2013	65,00,000	HDFC	18
5	12.03.2013	65,00,000	HDFC	19
6	09.05.2013	50,00,000	CASH	18 & 19
7	04.08.2013	50,00,000	CASH	18 & 19
8	04.08.2013	25,00,000	HDFC	19
9	04.08.2013	25,00,000	AXIS	18
10	01.01.2015	100,00,000	CASH	18 & 19
11	23.09.2015	10,00,000	HDFC	19
12	23.09.2015	25,00,000	HDFC	19
13	23.09.2015	615000	HDFC	18
14	23.09.2015	25,00,000	HDFC	18
15	26.06.2019	205,00,000	AXIS	19
16	26.06.2019	205,00,000	AXIS	18
17	04.07.2019	1,75,500	TDS	18
18	04.07.2019	1,90,000	TDS	19
	Total	5,34,81,150

¶33

3. As per the table, according to the plaintiff he had paid an amount of Rs.5,34,81,150/-. Even in the cross-examination, he admitted that as stated in the plaint he made the payments. Now, the present application is filed stating that in the above table at Serial Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, it is stated that he has paid an amount of Rs.65,00,000/but it should have been

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Rs.25,00,000/- and all these payments were made by way of cheques. If that amount of Rs.65,00,000/- is considered as paid, the total amount will come to Rs.6,94,84,000/-. It is submitted that it is a typographical mistake.

¶38

4. The Trial Court while allowing the application, has observed that the correction of a clerical or typographical mistake cannot be equated with withdrawal of admission unless it substantially alters the case. In the present case, the amendment appears explanatory in nature. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that allowing the amendment would fecilitate effective adjudication of the dispute and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant.

¶39

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitionerdefendant submits that after the amendment to the CPC Order VI Rule 17, the post trial amendments cannot be allowed unless it is averred and pleaded that in spite of due diligence the said amendment could not be carried out at an earlier stage. It is further submitted that in fact in the cross- examination, the

¶40

plaintiff had admitted that he has paid an amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- as stated in the plaint. Now by allowing this

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

amendment, it amounts to taking away the admissions made by the party and that is not permissible and trial Court ought not to have allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint and hence, the order impugned needs to be set aside.

¶45

6. Learned Counsel appearing to the respondent-plaintiff

¶46

submits that it is a pure typographical mistake and by amending the plaint, no prejudice is caused to the defendant and in fact there is no change in the cause of action or in the nature of the suit. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has rightly considered and allowed the application and hence, there are no reasons to interference.

¶47

7. Having heard the learned Counsels on either side,

¶48

perused the material on record.

¶49

8. There is no dispute about the fact that in the plaint, the plaintiff had stated about payment of certain amounts and the mode of payment. Some of the payments are made by cash and some of the payments are by way of cheques. The amount of Rs.65,00,000/- at Sl.Nos. 2 to 5 of the table is paid by way of a cheques and in the end of that table, the total

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

amount has come to Rs.5,34,81,150/-. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, if this amount is considered as Rs.65,00,000/- at Sl.Nos.2 to 5, it would come to Rs.6,94,84,000/- and moreover these payments are made by way of cheques and those cheques are part of the record. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly considered and allowed the amendment application as it is a typographical mistake and it does not amount to taking away any of the admissions made.

¶54

9. Ordinarily, the Courts will not let the parties to amend the pleadings when it changes the nature of the suit or take away the admissions that are made by the parties. At the same time, the amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed if they are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties.

¶55

10. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:29673 WP No. 9475 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶62