M/S VAKIL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (P) LTD vs SMT. MALATHI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60225
WP No. 24626 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010542072026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 24626 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S VAKIL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (P) LTD
REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
NO. 78, KORAMANGALA
INDUSTRIAL AREA
JYOTHI NIVAS COLLEGE ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE 560095
REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MOHSIN ALI VAKIL
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI BHARATH K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. SMT. MALATHI
DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2. SMT. VASANTHA
DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60225
WP No. 24626 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010542072026
4. SMT. ASHA
DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5. SRI.KANTHARAJU
SON OF LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESPONDENET Nos.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT JAIBHEEM NAGAR
A.K. COLONY, DODDAKERE BEGILU
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562107
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINOD N., ADVOCATE FOR R1,R2, R4 AND R5;
SMT. SYEDA SABA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 14.07.2026 PASSED ON 1.A.NO.3 IN
O.S.NO.459/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A. NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VI
RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60225
WP No. 24626 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010542072026
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed impugning the order dated
14.07.2026 passed in O.S. No. 459/2021, whereby I.A. No. III,
filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, came to
be rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff
submits that the suit was instituted seeking the relief of
injunction. Upon filing of the written statement, the defendant
disputed the plaintiff's title to the suit schedule property. In
view of the same, an application for amendment was filed
seeking to incorporate a prayer for declaratory relief.
2.1 It is submitted that the amendment application was filed
prior to the commencement of trial and ought to be considered
liberally, as the proposed amendment is necessary for the
complete and comprehensive adjudication of the suit. It is
further contended that, when a separate suit seeking the same
relief is maintainable, the amendment ought to be permitted to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60225
WP No. 24626 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010542072026
2.2 Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court has
not properly appreciated the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev
Builders Private Limited and another , Civil Appeal No
5909/2022 . It is contended that, in view of the law laid down
in the said judgment, where the proposed amendment relates
only to the relief sought in the plaint and is founded on facts
already pleaded therein, the amendment ought to be allowed.
Per contra
4. , learned counsel appearing for the
caveator/respondent No. 3 submits that the suit was instituted
in the year 2021 seeking injunctive relief, and the written
statement was filed on 25.02.2022. It is contended that no
steps were taken thereafter and that the amendment
application was filed only on 05.01.2026 with the intention of
delaying the proceedings. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
belated application ought not to be entertained.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the dilatory tactics
adopted by the petitioner have been duly recorded by the Trial
Court in the impugned order. It is also contended that
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60225
WP No. 24626 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010542072026
permitting the proposed amendment would change the nature
of the suit and give rise to the issue of limitation.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the impugned order.
6. The suit is one for permanent injunction. The affidavit
accompanying the amendment application states that, in view
of the denial of the plaintiff's title, the proposed amendment is
necessary to seek declaratory relief.
7. It is a settled principle of law that, where the plaintiff's
title is disputed in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff may be
required to seek a declaration of title. It is also well settled that
an amendment necessary for the complete adjudication of the
suit ought to be permitted liberally, subject to the applicable
legal requirements.
8. In the present case, the trial has not commenced and,
therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is not
attracted. Further, there are no allegations of fraud or
misrepresentation in seeking the proposed amendment.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60225
WP No. 24626 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010542072026
9. If the amendment is permitted, the question of limitation
would arise for consideration. This aspect has been dealt with
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation
of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another
(supra), wherein it has been held that, where the question of
delay is arguable, the amendment may be permitted and the
issue of limitation framed separately for adjudication.
10. An identical view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Haramani Sahoo and others v. Lalita Nayak and
others , Civil Appeal No. 13681/2026 , dated 12.10.2026 ,
wherein it is held that the proposed enlargement of factual and
legal questions requiring adjudication cannot, by itself, be
equated with a fundamental alteration in the nature and
character of the suit. It is further held that, unless the
proposed claim is expressly barred by law, the amendment
cannot be denied. Where the question of limitation is arguable
and depends upon disputed facts, including the date or manner
in which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the relevant
document or transaction, the amendment need not necessarily
be rejected at the threshold.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60225
WP No. 24626 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010542072026
11. The finding of the Trial Court, which merely refers to
paragraph 70(iii)(ii)(c) of the judgment in Life Insurance
Corporation of India (supra), is not sustainable. Paragraph
70(ix) of the very same judgment provides an answer to the
controversy arising in the present petition.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined
to entertain the petition. However, the possibility of prejudice
or hardship to the defendants, having regard to the plaintiff's
lack of cooperation in securing the early disposal of the suit,
cannot be disregarded. The proposed amendment would also
necessitate additional pleadings, thereby causing inconvenience
and hardship to the respondents. Such prejudice and hardship
require to be adequately compensated.
13. In view of the above, the following :
O R D E R
I. The writ petition is allowed .
II. The order dated 14.07.2026 passed in O.S. No.
459/2021 is set aside .
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60225
WP No. 24626 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010542072026
III. I.A. No. III filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17
of the CPC is allowed .
IV. If the issue of limitation is raised, the Trial Court is
directed to frame an appropriate issue and adjudicate
the same in accordance with law.
V. The proposed amendment is permitted, subject to
payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the defendants. The
costs shall be paid before carrying out the amendment
in the plaint, having regard to the plaintiff's conduct in
delaying the proceedings, as reflected in the order
sheet.
VI. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings
and conclude the suit within two years from the next
date of hearing.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9