SMT N BHAGYALAKSHMI vs SHRI DYAVAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56977
WP No. 15243 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010302682021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 15243 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT N BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE SHRI M S SUBRAMANYAM
AGED 75 YEARS,
R/AT NO.41, 1ST BLOCK,
3RD CROSS, YEMALUR
BENGALURU - 560 037
REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER AND GRANDSON
SHRI G SUNIL KUMAR
S/O S GOWRISHANKAR
AGED 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.41, 1ST BLOCK,
3RD CROSS, YEMALUR
BENGALURU - 560 037.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI DYAVAPPA
S/O CHIKKAVEERAPPA
AGED 72 YEARS
R/AT SHANBHOGUE COLONY
YAMALUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 037.
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE CHIKKAVEERAPPA
AGED 64 YEARS
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56977
WP No. 15243 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010302682021
3. Y C NARAYANA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERAPPA
AGED 70 YEARS
4. SHRI KEMPEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERAPPA
AGED 59 YEARS,
5. SHRI Y JAGADEESH
S/O SHRI YALAKKI GOWDA
AGED 51 YEARS,
6. SHRI D MANJUNATHA
S/O SHRI DYAVAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS,
R2 TO R6 ARE R/AT NO.41,
3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
YEMALUR, BENGALURU - 560 037.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5 AND R6)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 10.08.2021 ON I.A.NO.12 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.444/2012 AS PER ANNX-E AND
CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW I.A.NO.12 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE
17 OF CPC AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER / PLAINTIFFS
IN O.S.NO.444/2012.; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56977
WP No. 15243 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010302682021
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff calling
in question the order passed on I.A.No.12 in
O.S.No.444/2012, whereby the learned Trial Judge has
rejected the application filed by the plaintiff seeking
amendment of the plaint, primarily on the ground that the
suit had been posted for pronouncement of judgment. The
said order is impugned in the present writ petition.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Perused the impugned order, the proposed
amendment and the pleadings of the parties.
3. The petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted the suit
seeking a decree of declaration and consequential relief of
possession, alleging that the defendants had encroached
upon the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also
sought the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of
the alleged encroachment. The suit, instituted in the year
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56977
WP No. 15243 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010302682021
2012, is being contested by the defendants, who, in their
written statement, have specifically disputed the
measurements, boundaries and description of the suit
schedule property, contending that the same are not
correctly stated. The learned Trial Judge, taking note of
these specific objections raised in the written statement
and the fact that the defendants had extensively cross-
examined the plaintiff on the aspects of measurement,
boundaries and identification of the suit schedule property,
declined to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff.
The application was also rejected having regard to the
stage of the proceedings, as the suit had already been
posted for pronouncement of judgment.
4. This Court has carefully examined the pleadings
of the parties, the nature of the proposed amendment and
the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge. While an
application seeking amendment of the plaint is ordinarily
required to be considered liberally, such discretion must
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56977
WP No. 15243 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010302682021
necessarily be exercised having regard to the nature of the
amendment sought, the stage of the proceedings and the
prejudice that may be occasioned to the opposite party. In
the present case, the proposed amendment concerns the
measurements, boundaries and description of the suit
schedule property, which are matters directly in dispute
between the parties and have already formed the subject
matter of cross-examination during the trial. Though the
application has been filed at a stage when the suit was
posted for pronouncement of judgment, the affidavit filed
in support of the application is conspicuously bereft of
particulars and does not satisfactorily explain the
circumstances necessitating the proposed correction at
such a belated stage. No convincing explanation is
forthcoming as to why the alleged discrepancy in the
measurements and description of the suit schedule
property could not have been addressed at an earlier
stage of the proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56977
WP No. 15243 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010302682021
5. The apprehension expressed by the defendants
that permitting the proposed amendment at this advanced
stage would undermine the effect of the cross-examination
already undertaken with reference to the measurements,
boundaries and description of the suit schedule property
cannot be brushed aside. The proposed amendment, in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, has
the potential to prejudice the defendants and affect the
course of the adjudication. In these circumstances, this
Court finds no infirmity in the approach adopted by the
learned Trial Judge in declining to entertain the
application, particularly when the suit had already reached
the stage of pronouncement of judgment. The absence of
a cogent explanation for seeking the amendment at this
belated stage, coupled with the nature of the proposed
amendment and the prejudice likely to be caused to the
defendants, disentitles the petitioner to the discretionary
relief sought in the present writ petition.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56977
WP No. 15243 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010302682021
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no
ground warranting interference with the impugned order.
The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly
dismissed
.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34