R. RENUKARADHYA vs SRI. B SIDDAMALLAIAH DEAD BY LRS SMT. GURULINGAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 19010 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
R. RENUKARADHYA
S/O K.G. RUDRAMUNI ARADYA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT D NO.887, THIRAHANKARA MARGA
SIDDARATHA NAGARA, MYSURU - 570 011
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
MR. ABHISHEK R.
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. NIYATHI M, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. UDAY SHANKAR R.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. B. SIDDAMALLAIAH
(DEAD BY LRS)
1.
SMT. GURULINGAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDAMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
2.
SMT. A.S. RAJESHWARI
D/O LATE SIDDAMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3.
SRI. A.S. GURUSWAMY
S/O LATE SIDDAMALLAIAH
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
4. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI
D/O LATE SIDDAMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT ARAKALAVADI VILLAGE
HARADANAHALLI HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 127.
5.
JSS PRASADA NILAYAGALA HIRIYA
VIDYARTHIGALA GURUHANIRMANA
SAHAKARA SANGHA (LTD)
OFFICE NO.12/1, MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD
GANGOTHRI EXTENSION,
MYSURU - 570 009,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. C. RAJASHEKARAMURTHY.
6.
SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA @
LAKSHMAIAHNA KARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
7. SMT. BHAGYAMMA @ BHAGYA
W/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R NO.6 AND 7 ARE
R/AT D NO.199, VARAKUDU VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 570 010.
8.
SMT. SHRUTHI N
W/O NAGESH, D/O NAGARAJU
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT D. NO.28, SIDDARAMANAHUNDI VILLAGE
MYSURU TALUK - 570 010.
9. SUJAY
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
D NO.199, VARAKUDU VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 570 010.
10. SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
@ LAKSHMAIAHNA KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
11.
SMT. RADHA
W/O CHANNAKESHAVA
12. ABHISHEK
S/O CHANNAKESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
13. AVINASH
S/O CHANNAKESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R NO.8 TO 13 ARE R/AT NO.93/1
VARAKUDU VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 010.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. TRIPURA M.K, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2026, NOTICE TO R6 TO R10
HELD SUFFICIENT;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2026, NOTICE TO R11 TO R13
IS DISPENSED WITH)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
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 QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06-02-2026
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU IN O.S. NO.488/2018 ON I.A.
NO.14, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A 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 writ petition challenges the order dated
06.02.2026 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Mysuru, in O.S. No. 488/2018, on I.A. No. 14, whereby the
application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the written statement,
was rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner filed a written statement on
09.07.2018 and thereafter engaged another counsel before the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
Trial Court. Subsequently, a second written statement came to
be filed on 22.02.2019. It is submitted that issues were framed
and the plaintiff’s evidence was recorded on the basis of the
second written statement. The petitioner became aware of the
fact that two written statements had been filed only at the
stage of the defendant’s evidence. Accordingly, a memo was
filed on 07.12.2023 seeking permission to withdraw the second
written statement.
3. In the meanwhile, an application came to be filed
seeking amendment of the written statement to incorporate the
pleadings contained in the second written statement. It is
submitted that the Trial Court permitted the withdrawal of the
second written statement but rejected the application seeking
amendment. Learned counsel contends that the proposed
amendments are necessary to bring the pleadings in conformity
with the issues framed and the evidence recorded by the Trial
Court. It is further submitted that the anomaly arose due to an
error on the part of the counsel, for which the petitioner ought
not to be deprived of the opportunity to defend the suit on
merits.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that, if the second written statement was
more comprehensive, there was no impediment to the
petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the first written
statement instead. It is further submitted that the application
under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was filed even before an
order was passed on the memo seeking withdrawal of the
second written statement. According to learned counsel, the
exercise is intended to delay the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
further submits that the proposed amendments primarily relate
to the applicability of the provisions of the Prohibition of
Benami Property Transactions (Prohibition Act), 1988, in
respect of which no issues have been framed. It is, therefore,
contended that the proposed amendments are unnecessary for
the adjudication of the suit.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned order.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
7. The suit is one for specific performance of an
agreement to execute a registered sale deed. The petitioner
filed a written statement on 09.07.2018, followed by a second
written statement on 22.02.2019. The specific contention of the
petitioner is that the second written statement was filed by
another counsel, who was subsequently engaged, without
noticing that a written statement had already been filed.
8. The explanation now advanced before this Court,
namely, that the second written statement was filed
inadvertently and that the proposed amendment has become
necessary consequent upon its withdrawal, may appear
plausible. However, the Trial Court has considered the reasons
set out in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking
amendment.
9. A perusal of the affidavit indicates that it does not
disclose the circumstances in which two written statements
came to be filed, the reasons necessitating the withdrawal of
the second written statement, or the consequent need to
amend the first written statement. The affidavit is
conspicuously silent on these material aspects.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
10. An application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC
must satisfy the requirements of the provision, including the
proviso thereto, which is applicable in the present case, as the
trial had already commenced. The affidavit merely states that
the proposed amendments are relevant for the adjudication of
the suit. It does not explain that the amendments are sought to
incorporate the pleadings contained in the second written
statement, which was subsequently withdrawn. More
importantly, there is no explanation as to why, despite the
exercise of due diligence, the proposed amendments could not
have been incorporated in the first written statement at the
appropriate stage.
11. The mistake of counsel, by itself, cannot be
accepted as a sufficient ground to circumvent the statutory
requirements governing the amendment of pleadings after
commencement of trial. Permitting such explanations in the
absence of the necessary pleadings and supporting
circumstances would undermine the legislative intent of
ensuring the expeditious disposal of civil proceedings.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
12. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was
introduced with effect from 01.07.2002 to restrict belated
amendments after commencement of trial, unless the Court is
satisfied that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the party
could not have raised the matter before the commencement of
trial. The legislative intent is to prevent avoidable delays in the
disposal of suits arising from belated applications for
amendment.
13. No doubt, amendments to pleadings may be
permitted at any stage of the proceedings if they are relevant
and necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute.
However, the exercise of such discretion after commencement
of trial is subject to satisfaction of the statutory requirements
prescribed under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Basavaraj Vs.
Indira and others , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705 , has
reiterated the requirement of establishing due diligence when
seeking amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial.
The burden lies on the party seeking amendment to
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58508
WP No. 19010 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010416572026
demonstrate that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the
matter could not have been raised earlier.
15. In the present case, the affidavit filed in support of
the application does not contain the necessary pleadings to
satisfy the requirements of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of
the CPC. No attempt has been made to establish the requisite
due diligence, nor do the circumstances stated in the
application satisfy the statutory requirement. The proposed
amendment cannot, therefore, be permitted as a matter of
right.
16. In view of the above, this Court finds no error or
infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8