SHRI C NATARAJ SINCE DEAD BY LR RATHNAMBIKE R KENI vs NANDINI N
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56757
WP No. 28443 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010623532026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28443 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. C. NATARAJ
SINCE DEAD BY LR
RATHNAMBIKE R. KENI
W/O SHRI. RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT 223, 1ST FLOOR
9TH CROSS, 'C' BLOCK
JP NAGAR, MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 031.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED ZABIULLA KHAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B
S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1.
NANDINI N
WIFE OF SHRI. B.G. HARISH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
EX- CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC
RESIDING AT GUDIBANDE
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 561 209.
2. ANURADHA DESHAK
W/O SHRI. MAHADEVA DESHAK
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56757
WP No. 28443 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010623532026
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO. 605,
ASPEN, SANKALP CENTRAL PARK,
JAVA MAIN ROAD, YADAVAGIRI,
MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 020.
3.
SUMANA SHETTY
W/O SHRI. J.P SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT 2215, 135TH PLSE
BELLEVUE, W.A., U.S.A - 98005.
4. BHARATHI P. SALIMATH
W/O SRI. PARAMAHAMSA SALIMATH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO. 52, SANGAMA
14TH CROSS, 'A' BLOCK
J.P. NAGARA, MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 008.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. N. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE THEREOF, QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 04-08-2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, ON I.A. NO.21 IN
O.S. NO.726/2009PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F, WHEREBY THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56757
WP No. 28443 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010623532026
RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC HAS BEEN REJECTED
WITH COSTS OF RS.5,000/- AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The present petition impugns the order dated
04.08.2026, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff in I.A.
No. 21 in O.S. No. 726/2009 under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
amendment of the plaint, came to be rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the application was filed seeking to incorporate facts
relating to the Will dated 18.06.2010, executed by the original
plaintiff after the institution of the suit. It is submitted that,
since the Will constituted a subsequent development, the plaint
did not contain any pleadings in that regard.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56757
WP No. 28443 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010623532026
2.1 It is further submitted that the petitioners filed the
application for amendment in their capacity as the legal heirs of
the original plaintiff, as the Will came into effect upon the death
of the plaintiff on 30.12.2019.
2.2 Learned counsel further submits that the proposed
amendment is necessary for the effective and comprehensive
adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings. It is contended that where an amendment is
necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit, the same
ought to be permitted liberally at any stage of the proceedings.
Per contra
3. , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.
1, on caveat, submits that the Will introduces a new cause of
action and alters the scope of the suit. In that view, it is
contended that the proposed amendment cannot be permitted.
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the application for
amendment was filed by the applicants in their capacity as the
legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, who came on
record on 14.12.2020. It is submitted that, thereafter, the Trial
Court proceeded to record evidence and that the application
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56757
WP No. 28443 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010623532026
came to be filed at a stage when the suit was posted for final
arguments.
3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the liberal approach
adopted in permitting amendments to pleadings cannot be
invoked without satisfying the requirements of the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is
contended that, in the absence of satisfaction of the
requirements stipulated in the proviso, the Trial Court was
justified in rejecting the application.
4. Having considered the submissions made by learned
counsel appearing for both parties and upon perusal of the
impugned order, it is evident that the dates and events are not
in dispute.
5. The suit was instituted in the year 2009. The original
plaintiff executed a Will dated 18.06.2010 and died on
30.12.2019. The death of the plaintiff was reported to the Court
on 21.02.2020. The petitioners herein were impleaded as the
legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on 14.12.2020.
At the time of their impleadment, the suit was at the stage of
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56757
WP No. 28443 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010623532026
recording evidence. Thereafter, the petitioners participated in
the proceedings, and upon completion of the evidence, the suit
was heard and reserved for judgment. It is at that stage that
the application in question came to be filed, seeking to reopen
the case and amend the plaint.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Basavaraj v. Indira ,
, has considered the effect of the proviso to
(2024) 3 SCC 705
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the
circumstances in which an application for amendment of
pleadings may be entertained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that, after commencement of the trial, an amendment
cannot be permitted unless the Court comes to the conclusion
that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.
The burden is on the party seeking amendment after
commencement of the trial to establish that, despite due
diligence, the amendment could not have been sought earlier.
An amendment of pleadings cannot be claimed as a matter of
right.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56757
WP No. 28443 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010623532026
7. In the present case, the application under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC is required to be considered in the light of the
proviso thereto. The proviso restricts the entertainment of an
application for amendment after commencement of the trial,
unless the Court is satisfied that, despite the exercise of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before
commencement of the trial.
8. Upon perusal of the application and the affidavit filed in
support thereof, this Court finds that the petitioners have
neither set out the requisite pleadings nor made out a case
satisfying the requirements of the proviso. In the absence of
any explanation establishing that the proposed amendment
could not have been sought earlier despite the exercise of due
diligence, the amendment cannot be permitted at this stage of
the proceedings.
9. In view of the statutory rigour of the proviso, the
question as to whether the proposed amendment is necessary
for the effective adjudication of the dispute does not alter the
position in the absence of satisfaction of the mandatory
requirement stipulated therein.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56757
WP No. 28443 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010623532026
10. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the sequence of
events and the stage at which the application came to be filed,
has rightly held that the requirements of the proviso to Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC have not been satisfied. This Court finds
no error in the impugned order warranting interference.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed .
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11