SMT P SUNITHA vs SMT S HARSHINI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025








IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION NO. 19826 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)



BETWEEN:


SMT. P. SUNITHA,


W/O. DR. B. GURAPPA NAIDU,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

R/AT NO.42, 6TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK,

JAVARAIAH GARDEN, THYAGARAJANAGAR,

BANGALORE - 560 028.

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER,

DR. B. GURAPPA NAIDU..

Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY LEARNED SENIOR COUNCEL FOR
SRI. SUBBA REDDY K.N., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.
SMT. S. HARSHINI,
W/O SHRI. D. SUDHAKARA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O NO.12, 4TH CROSS,
GANDHINGAR,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



BENGALURU - 560 009.

2. SHRI. SRAVANA MURTHY,
S/O. LATE SHRI. JAYPAL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.33, IST MAIN, IST CROSS,
ADARSHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 075.

3. SHRI. MURTHY N.N.,
W/O LATE SHRI. N. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.498, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, NFEF LAYOUT,
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072.

4. SHRI. C. J. GOPINATH NAIDU,
S/O. C.G. JAGANNATH NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO.99, BILIGIRI HOUSE,
OPP: BANDE MARAMMA BUS STAND,
NAGARBHAVI, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 072.

5.
SHRI. K. YASHWANTH SINGH,
S/O. LATE SHRI. T. KRISHNA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT, NO. 1219,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, VIJAY NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



6. M/S. HOORNAPRIYA AMBA FUELS,
SY. NO. 27 2/2 OLD SY. NO. 122/1,
PREVIOUSLY SY. NO. 122/2 AND EARLIER,
SY. NO. 122 AND 122/3,
KENGERI VILLAGE, KENGIRI HOBLI,
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
MR. M.R. BHAGWAN SINGH.

7.
M/S BRINDAVAN ENTERPRISES,
NO. 707, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD,
RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010.

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. M. RAGHAVENDRA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.L. JAGADEESH, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY V., ADVOCATE FOR R1
VIDE ORDER DATED 30/09/2026 NOTICE TO R2 TO R7
IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 10.06.2025 ON IA NO. 20 OF THE COMMERCIAL
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 745/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED LXXXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU IN ALLOWING THE
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CPC VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated
10.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.20 in Commercial
O.S.No.745/2023, pending on the file of the LXXXVII Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru (for
short, ‘Commercial Court’), whereby the application filed under
Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking
amendment of the counter-claim came to be allowed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner instituted Com.O.S.No.745/2023
against the respondents, seeking a direction to the respondents
to quit, deliver, vacate and hand over possession of the suit
schedule property, and for payment of arrears of rent, service
tax and GST, along with damages.
2.1 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the lease deed was
executed in the year 2015 and came to be terminated upon
expiry of the lease period in the year 2025. It is submitted that
the counter-claim, along with the written statement, came to
be filed on 31.10.2023.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



2.2 It is further submitted that, with a view to defeat the suit
and as a part of the delay tactics, one of the respondents filed
an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which came
to be rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, an unsuccessful
writ petition came to be filed, which was dismissed on
04.09.2024 insofar as the said application. It is submitted that
thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was filed against the said
order, which came to be withdrawn on 13.12.2024.
2.3 It is further submitted that, while the suit was
progressing and had reached the stage of recording of the
plaintiff's evidence, the application seeking amendment of the
counter-claim came to be filed, seeking incorporation of an
additional prayer for damages.
2.4 It is submitted that the pleadings sought to be introduced
by way of amendment had already been set out in the written
statement and the counter-claim, and that no due diligence was
exercised in seeking the reliefs now sought to be introduced. It
is submitted that the requirement of due diligence has neither
been established in the application nor examined by the
Commercial Court in the impugned order.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



2.5 Learned Senior Counsel submits that, apart from the
necessity of the amendment for the effective and
comprehensive adjudication of the dispute in the suit, in view of
the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, due diligence is
required to be established. Mere relevancy of the proposed
amendment, by itself, is not sufficient.
2.6 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, having
regard to the purpose and object sought to be achieved by the
enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which
contemplates expeditious adjudication of commercial disputes
within the prescribed timelines, the conduct of the respondents
in filing the application, as well as the preceding proceedings,
are relevant considerations.
2.7 Learned Senior Counsel, in support of the aforesaid
submissions, places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Vidyabai and Others v. Padmalatha and
Another [(2009) 2 SCC 409] and Basavaraj v. Indira and
Others [(2024) 3 SCC 705] , and the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in Usha Drager Pvt. Ltd. and Another v.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft and Others [2025 SCC
OnLine Del 300]
.
2.8 With the assistance of the aforesaid judgments, it is
contended that, unless due diligence is established, an
amendment cannot be permitted at any stage of the
proceedings.
3. Per contra , learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the written statement and counter-
claim were filed on 31.10.2023. It is submitted that the
amendment was necessitated by subsequent events, namely,
the filing of an application for conversion of the suit property
from industrial use to commercial use, which constitutes the
core dispute in the suit.
3.1 It is submitted that the proposed amendment is only to
bring on record the subsequent events and the consequential
relief arising therefrom. Since the amendment seeks to bring
on record facts relating to subsequent developments, the
requirement of due diligence is sufficiently explained.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



3.2 It is further submitted that, as the conversion of the suit
property for commercial use, as promised by the plaintiff,
remained unfulfilled, the respondents pleaded the financial loss
and damages caused to them. The prayer for damages is
consequential to and founded upon the said pleadings.
3.3 It is submitted that, insofar as the amendment of the
pleadings is concerned, the same is sought to bring on record
the subsequent events, along with the documents which were
not in existence as on the date of filing of the counter-claim. It
is submitted that the Commercial Court, having appreciated
that the proposed amendment is relevant and necessary for the
complete and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute, has
rightly permitted the amendment.
3.4 In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior
Counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and
Another [AIR 2002 SC 3369], Revajeetu Builders and
Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others
[(2009) 10 SCC 84], L.C. Hanumanthappa v. H.B.
Shivakumar [(2016) 1 SCC 332], Life Insurance

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and
Another [AIR 2022 SC 4256], Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal
and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others [AIR 2006 SC 1647],
and Baldev Singh and Others v. Manohar Singh and
Another [(2006) 6 SCC 498] .
4. Considered the submissions made by learned Senior
Counsels appearing for both the parties and perused the
material on record.
5. The petitioner instituted the suit before the Commercial
Court seeking a direction to the respondents to quit, deliver,
vacate and hand over possession of the suit schedule property,
along with other reliefs towards arrears of rent, payment of
taxes and damages.
5.1 The respondents filed their counterclaim along with
written statement on 31.10.2023. From the counterclaim and
written statement, it is evident that the property in question
was leased on the assurance that the same would be converted
for commercial purposes, though it was then being used for
industrial purposes. It is specifically pleaded that, on account of

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



the failure of the plaintiff to convert the suit schedule property
from industrial to commercial use, the premises remained
permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let out. It is
further pleaded that, on account of such inaction, the
respondents suffered financial loss.
5.2 The prayer in the counter-claim was to declare the
registered lease deed dated 09.04.2015 as void and
unenforceable and to issue a mandatory injunction directing the
plaintiff to execute a fresh registered lease deed in favour of
defendant No.1 for a further period of 25 years from
06.01.2023, along with other injunctive reliefs.
5.3 The application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC
sets out the proposed amendments to the pleadings and the
additional prayer. The application is supported by an affidavit.
The affidavit states that an application for conversion was filed
before the Deputy Commissioner on 03.04.2024, seeking
change of land use from industrial to commercial, and that the
said fact came to light only when defendant No.6 filed an
application under the RTI Act seeking information.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



5.4 It is further stated that, in view of the information
furnished under the RTI Act, the proposed amendment is
necessary to bring the subsequent events on record. It is also
stated that the application dated 03.04.2024 would establish
that the suit property continued to retain its industrial land-use
status.
5.5 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
contends that, as the proposed amendment is intended to bring
the subsequent events on record, the requirement of due
diligence contemplated under the proviso stands sufficiently
explained. On a reading of the contents of the affidavit
accompanying the application, the submission appears to be
justifiable.
5.6 However, when the proposed amendments are compared
with the counter-claim already filed, it is evident that the
respondents have categorically pleaded the failure of the
petitioner to convert the suit schedule property from industrial
use to commercial use. It is further pleaded that, due to such
failure, the scheduled property remained unfit for the purpose
for which it was let out. It is also pleaded that, on account of

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



such inaction in effecting the conversion, the respondents
suffered injury and financial loss.
5.7 The aforesaid pleadings are relevant to determine
whether the proposed amendment is founded upon any new
information which was not within the possession or knowledge
of the respondents at the time of filing the counterclaim and
written statement. The answer, in the considered view of this
Court, is in the negative. The factum of the failure to effect
conversion and the resultant financial loss were within the
knowledge of the respondents and had already been specifically
pleaded in the counter-claim and written statement.
5.8 At the most, the subsequent development is the
availability of documents supporting such claim, which is the
subject matter of I.A.No.21, allowed by an order passed on the
same day.
6. On a perusal of the judgments cited by both sides, it is
evident that, when an amendment to the pleadings is sought,
the same is to be considered liberally and, if any prejudice is
likely to be caused to the other party, such prejudice can be

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



compensated. It is also held that, if the amendment is
necessary for the effective and comprehensive adjudication of
the dispute, the same may be permitted at any stage of the
proceedings.
6.1 However, such consideration cannot be dehors the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, particularly in the
context of proceedings before the Commercial Court governed
by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The liberal approach in
permitting amendments to pleadings is subject to compliance
with the requirement of due diligence contemplated under the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17.
6.2 In view of the settled position of law, as observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj (supra) , the burden is on
the party seeking amendment after commencement of the trial
to establish that, despite exercising due diligence, the
amendment could not have been sought earlier. It is further
held that, though amendments are ordinarily permitted to avoid
multiplicity of litigation, the Court is required to consider
whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala
fide , and whether the proposed amendment would cause such

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



prejudice to the other side as cannot be adequately
compensated in terms of money.
6.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that satisfaction
of the requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC is a pre-condition for entertaining an application for
amendment after commencement of the trial. If the application
and the affidavit filed in support of the proposed amendment
are examined, there is no pleading to the effect that the
amendment sought to be introduced could not have been
raised, despite exercise of due diligence, at the time of filing
the written statement and counter-claim.
6.4 However, by clever drafting, an attempt is made to
demonstrate that the proposed amendment is necessitated by
subsequent information received during the pendency of the
suit. On a close perusal of the pleadings in the counter-claim,
such an attempt necessarily fails. When the respondents were
aware of the non-conversion of the property for commercial
use, for which purpose it was leased, and had specifically
pleaded the financial loss suffered on account of the failure of
the plaintiff/petitioner to effect such conversion, there was

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



nothing preventing the respondents from seeking the
consequential relief, namely, a prayer for damages.
6.5 Above all, the manner in which the proceedings have
progressed before the Commercial Court, having regard to the
purpose and object underlying the establishment of Commercial
Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, also requires
consideration and emphasis.
6.5.1 After filing of the counter-claim, an application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was filed seeking rejection of the
plaint. The said attempt remained unsuccessful before the
Commercial Court, before this Court, as well as before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is only thereafter that the cause of
action, claimed to have arisen from a subsequent development,
has been sought to be introduced on the basis of the
information furnished by the competent authority under the RTI
Act in response to an application made by defendant No.6.
6.5.2 The pleadings before the Court, prima facie , suggest that
the lease deed was executed for a specified period and that the
respondents declined to vacate the premises upon expiry of the

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



lease period. When the suit seeking eviction was instituted, the
same came to be resisted by the respondents.
6.6 Having regard to the object and purpose underlying the
establishment of Commercial Courts under the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, which seeks to facilitate economic growth,
enhance the international image of the Indian justice delivery
system, and ensure speedy disposal of commercial disputes,
the amendment sought at this stage would necessarily result in
further delay in the adjudication of the suit. Such delay would
prejudice the rights of the plaintiff/petitioner.
7. The judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for
the respondents in Sampath Kumar (supra) , Revajeetu
Builders and Developers (supra) , and L.C. Hanumanthappa
(supra) , are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as
the interpretation of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC
was not the subject matter for consideration in those cases.
7.1 Insofar as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) is concerned,
though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an application

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



for amendment is to be considered liberally, such consideration
is subject to the Court satisfying itself as to whether the prayer
for amendment is mala fide or whether it would affect the valid
defence of the other party. In the light of the observations
made hereinabove with regard to the conduct of the
respondents in prosecuting the suit, the attempt made by way
of the proposed amendment cannot, undoubtedly, be said to be
bona fide .
7.2 Insofar as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Baldev Singh and Others (supra) is concerned, the said
judgment did not deal with the interpretation of the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17, except with regard to the stage at which it
can be said that the trial has commenced.
8. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the
Commercial Court committed an error in permitting the
amendment to the counter-claim without there being any
pleading or material establishing that the amendment could not
have been sought despite exercise of due diligence at the time
of filing the counter-claim. The Commercial Court has also
failed to record any finding with regard to the requirement of

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54482
WP No. 19826 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010434392025



due diligence, which is mandatory for entertaining and
permitting an amendment after commencement of the trial.
9. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commercial Court
cannot be sustained. In the light of the above, the following:
ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .

ii. The order dated 10.06.2025 in application in
I.A.No.20 of the Commercial O.S.No.745/2023
pending on the file of LXXXVII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru
stands rejected.

iii. I.A.No.20 filed under Order VI Rule 17 is
dismissed.

Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE


DDU
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0