Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 28926 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K S MAHALINGAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT K GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560060
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND BEERANNAVAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GANGAREDDY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11, NEAR BY
ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 20.08.2025 IN O.S.NO.1666/2019 ON THE FILE OF FIRST
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-E AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.1666/2019 on
the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated
20.08.2025, whereby the application-I.A.No.II filed by the
respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for
amendment of the plaint by incorporating an additional relief
for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was allowed by the trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the
petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
together with interest and other reliefs. The said suit having
been contested by the petitioner/defendant, the
respondent/plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence
after which, the matter was posted for defendant's evidence at
which stage, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application-
I.A.No.II seeking amendment of the prayer column for an
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
additional sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said application having
been opposed by the petitioner/defendant, the trial Court
proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application,
by holding as under:
" ORDER ON IA No.II
The plaintiff has filed application Under Order 6
Rule 17 R/w section 151 of CPC, seeking permission
to amend the plaint as sought in the application.
2. The reasons ventilated by the plaintiff in the
affidavit annexed to the application is that the
plaintiff has filed the present suit against the
defendants seeking recovery of amount
Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the cheque No.927979
Bytarayanapura Bangalore now the matter is posted
for further evidence of the plaintiff. It is further
submitted that, plaintiff came to know that specific
prayer for direction to mentioning the prayer to pay
Rs.5,00,000/- was left out in the prayer Colum, in
the plaint averment. Hence prays to allow the
application.
3. Per contra, the defendant has filed the objection,
in the objection it is contended that, the application
filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law
or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in
limine. The suit is filed on 11.12.2019 and the cause
of action is shown to be on 21.03.2019, 18.04.2019
and 29.08.2019, as per their own averments made in
the paragraph No.8 of the plaint when multiple date
of cause of action are claimed, the last dated
mention which is 29.08.2019 if it is considered for
the purpose of limitation, even then also the relief
which the plaintiff wants to insert under the prayer
seeking for claim of Rs.5,00,000/- is barred by
limitation, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to make
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
an amendment seeking for relief which is barred by
limitation. Hence prays to dismiss the application.
4. Heard arguments from plaintiff side. The
defendant has not canvased his side arguments.
Hence defendant side arguments is taken as not
canvased.
5. After going through the application with
affidavit points arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out
sufficient grounds to amend the plaint?
2. What order ?
6. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per the final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
7. Point No.1 : The plaintiff has filed the present
suit against the defendants seeking recovery of
amount Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the cheque
No.927979 Bytarayanapura Bangalore.
8. Through this application, the plaintiff has
sought to amend the plaint as sought for directing
the defendant to pay Rs.5,00,000/- covered under
the cheque No.927979 dated 21.03.2019 drawn on
Canara Bank Bytarayanapura Bangalore along with
cost of the suit.
9. As per Section 101 to 103 of Indian Evidence
Act, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his
pleadings with proof on documentary and oral
evidence. It is settled principle of law that, at the
time of considering the amendment application the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
court must not go into the merits of the case. No
prejudice will be caused to the defendant, if this
application is allowed. On the other hand, if this
application is rejected, the plaintiff is deceived with
an opportunity to put forth their case. The plaintiff
has sought to amend, directing the defendant to pay
Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the cheque No.927979
dated 21.03.2019 drawn on Canara Bank
Bytarayanapu ra Bangalore along with cost of the
suit. On perusal of the entire pleadings the suit filed
by the plaintiff is with regard to recovery of amount
of Rs.5,00,000/-. If the amendment application is
not allowed definitely the same will lead to
multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings it is just and necessary to
allow the application. In the touchstone of the
reasons stated above, I answer Point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
10. Point No.2 : In view of my findings on Point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The IA No.II filed by the plaintiff Under
Order VI Rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of C.P.C. is
hereby allowed on cost of Rs.500/-.
The plaintiff is permitted to amend the
plaint and to file the amended plaint."
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is
before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. A perusal of the material on record including the
impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has correctly
and properly come to the conclusion that the proposed
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
amendment was relevant and necessary for the purpose of
adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties.
6. Under these circumstances, I do not find any
illegality or infirmity with the impugned order warranting
interference by this Court in the present petition.
7. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner
that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation is
concerned, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and
Ors reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C.Hanumanthappa
v. H.B.Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and ors reported
in AIR 2022 SC 4256 , the proper course of action would be to
permit amendment by directing that the proposed amendment
does not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be
reckoned/considered from the date of the filing of the
amendment application, which was filed on 24.10.2024 and by
leaving open the contention regarding limitation to be decided
along with other issues in the suit and as such, the impugned
order deserves to be clarified accordingly.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering
with the impugned order passed by the trial
Court.
ii) IA No.II filed by the respondent/plaintiff is hereby
allowed and amendment is permitted subject to
the condition that the proposed amendment shall
not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be
reckoned/considered from the date on which the
I.A.II was filed i.e., from 24.10.2024.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the
petitioner/defendant to file additional written
statement to the amended plaint and raise all
defences including maintainability, jurisdiction,
limitation, identity of property etc., which shall be
considered by the trial Court in accordance with
law.
(iv) All rival contentions on all aspects including
limitation etc., are kept open to be decided by the
trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the
same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 28926 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K S MAHALINGAIAH
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT K GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560060
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND BEERANNAVAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GANGAREDDY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11, NEAR BY
ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 20.08.2025 IN O.S.NO.1666/2019 ON THE FILE OF FIRST
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-E AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.1666/2019 on
the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated
20.08.2025, whereby the application-I.A.No.II filed by the
respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for
amendment of the plaint by incorporating an additional relief
for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- was allowed by the trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the
petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
together with interest and other reliefs. The said suit having
been contested by the petitioner/defendant, the
respondent/plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence
after which, the matter was posted for defendant's evidence at
which stage, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application-
I.A.No.II seeking amendment of the prayer column for an
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
additional sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said application having
been opposed by the petitioner/defendant, the trial Court
proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application,
by holding as under:
" ORDER ON IA No.II
The plaintiff has filed application Under Order 6
Rule 17 R/w section 151 of CPC, seeking permission
to amend the plaint as sought in the application.
2. The reasons ventilated by the plaintiff in the
affidavit annexed to the application is that the
plaintiff has filed the present suit against the
defendants seeking recovery of amount
Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the cheque No.927979
Bytarayanapura Bangalore now the matter is posted
for further evidence of the plaintiff. It is further
submitted that, plaintiff came to know that specific
prayer for direction to mentioning the prayer to pay
Rs.5,00,000/- was left out in the prayer Colum, in
the plaint averment. Hence prays to allow the
application.
3. Per contra, the defendant has filed the objection,
in the objection it is contended that, the application
filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law
or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in
limine. The suit is filed on 11.12.2019 and the cause
of action is shown to be on 21.03.2019, 18.04.2019
and 29.08.2019, as per their own averments made in
the paragraph No.8 of the plaint when multiple date
of cause of action are claimed, the last dated
mention which is 29.08.2019 if it is considered for
the purpose of limitation, even then also the relief
which the plaintiff wants to insert under the prayer
seeking for claim of Rs.5,00,000/- is barred by
limitation, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to make
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
an amendment seeking for relief which is barred by
limitation. Hence prays to dismiss the application.
4. Heard arguments from plaintiff side. The
defendant has not canvased his side arguments.
Hence defendant side arguments is taken as not
canvased.
5. After going through the application with
affidavit points arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out
sufficient grounds to amend the plaint?
2. What order ?
6. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per the final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
7. Point No.1 : The plaintiff has filed the present
suit against the defendants seeking recovery of
amount Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the cheque
No.927979 Bytarayanapura Bangalore.
8. Through this application, the plaintiff has
sought to amend the plaint as sought for directing
the defendant to pay Rs.5,00,000/- covered under
the cheque No.927979 dated 21.03.2019 drawn on
Canara Bank Bytarayanapura Bangalore along with
cost of the suit.
9. As per Section 101 to 103 of Indian Evidence
Act, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his
pleadings with proof on documentary and oral
evidence. It is settled principle of law that, at the
time of considering the amendment application the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
court must not go into the merits of the case. No
prejudice will be caused to the defendant, if this
application is allowed. On the other hand, if this
application is rejected, the plaintiff is deceived with
an opportunity to put forth their case. The plaintiff
has sought to amend, directing the defendant to pay
Rs.5,00,000/- covered under the cheque No.927979
dated 21.03.2019 drawn on Canara Bank
Bytarayanapu ra Bangalore along with cost of the
suit. On perusal of the entire pleadings the suit filed
by the plaintiff is with regard to recovery of amount
of Rs.5,00,000/-. If the amendment application is
not allowed definitely the same will lead to
multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings it is just and necessary to
allow the application. In the touchstone of the
reasons stated above, I answer Point No.1 in the
Affirmative.
10. Point No.2 : In view of my findings on Point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The IA No.II filed by the plaintiff Under
Order VI Rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of C.P.C. is
hereby allowed on cost of Rs.500/-.
The plaintiff is permitted to amend the
plaint and to file the amended plaint."
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is
before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. A perusal of the material on record including the
impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has correctly
and properly come to the conclusion that the proposed
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
amendment was relevant and necessary for the purpose of
adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties.
6. Under these circumstances, I do not find any
illegality or infirmity with the impugned order warranting
interference by this Court in the present petition.
7. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioner
that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation is
concerned, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and
Ors reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C.Hanumanthappa
v. H.B.Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and ors reported
in AIR 2022 SC 4256 , the proper course of action would be to
permit amendment by directing that the proposed amendment
does not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be
reckoned/considered from the date of the filing of the
amendment application, which was filed on 24.10.2024 and by
leaving open the contention regarding limitation to be decided
along with other issues in the suit and as such, the impugned
order deserves to be clarified accordingly.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5457
WP No. 28926 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering
with the impugned order passed by the trial
Court.
ii) IA No.II filed by the respondent/plaintiff is hereby
allowed and amendment is permitted subject to
the condition that the proposed amendment shall
not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be
reckoned/considered from the date on which the
I.A.II was filed i.e., from 24.10.2024.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the
petitioner/defendant to file additional written
statement to the amended plaint and raise all
defences including maintainability, jurisdiction,
limitation, identity of property etc., which shall be
considered by the trial Court in accordance with
law.
(iv) All rival contentions on all aspects including
limitation etc., are kept open to be decided by the
trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the
same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2