SMT. AKKAYAMMA vs SMT. SONNAMMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9909 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
W/O NANJEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SRI SRINIVAS
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.9
SAHAKARNAGAR POST
VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE STREET
KODIGENAHALLI, BANGALORE 560092.
3. SRI M KUMAR
S/O M MUTHARAYAPPA
AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS
HOUSE NO 2417 /29 17TH MAIN ROAD
VUJAYLANAGAR BANGALORE 40
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI D.V. JSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI G. A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SONNAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
W/O MUNINJINAPPA
AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT DODDABYALAKERE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
SHIVA KOTE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH 560090.
2. SMT SHOBHA
D/O ANJINAMMA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
3. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR
S/O SMT ANJINAMMA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS No.2 AND 3 ARE
RESIDING AT SADENAHALLI POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK -562110
4. SMT RATHANAMMA
W/O LATE B M GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5. SRI B J MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE B M GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
6. SMT RATHNAMMA
S/O LATE B M GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
7. SRI B J MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE B M GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
8. SRI B J ANADHA
D/O LATE B M GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
9. SMT MANJULLA
D/O LATE B M GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
10. B M MUNIVENKATAPPA
B M MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
11. SMT VENKATA LAXMAMMA
W/O B M MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
12. SRI B M KRISHNA
S/O B M MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
13. SRI B M RAVIKUMAR
S/O B M MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
14. SRI B M MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
15. SRI LALITHAMMA
W/O B M MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
16. SRI B M ANILKUMAR
S/O B M MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
17. SMT GOWRAMMA
D/O B M MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
18. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
19. SRI B S RAGHU KUMAR
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
20. SRI B S HEMANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.18 TO 19 ARE
R/AT BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 562157.
21. SMT BHAGYAMMA
W/O B G MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BETTAHALSURU VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 562157.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BABU T.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2026, OTICE TO R4 TO R21 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER
DATED 02.02.2026 (ANNEXURE-H) PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ON IA NO. 9 IN
OS NO. 520/2010 AND TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION WITH
COST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed challenging the order dated
02.02.2026 passed in O.S. No. 520/2010, whereby I.A. No. 9,
filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of
the plaint, came to be allowed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the averments relating to the sale deeds, which
are sought to be incorporated in the prayer, were already
pleaded in the plaint and that the plaintiffs had knowledge of
the said transactions. It is further submitted that the sale deeds
were specifically referred to in the written statement filed by
defendant No. 17. The petitioners herein claim right, title and
interest under the said sale deeds. It is contended that, having
regard to the plaintiffs’ knowledge of the sale deeds, the
subsequent purchaser was arrayed as defendant No. 17.
2.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, despite
having knowledge of the sale deeds as early as in the year
2010, the plaintiffs filed the applications seeking amendment
only in the year 2025, which is impermissible. It is contended
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
that the reliefs sought to be introduced by way of amendment
are barred by limitation. It is further submitted that where the
reliefs sought to be incorporated are ex facie barred by
limitation, such amendment cannot be permitted.
2.2 It is also contended that the applications were filed after
a lapse of two years from the date on which the suit had
reached the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence. The proviso to Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC operates as a bar to the amendment
unless the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied.
Per contra
3. , learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the application for amendment was filed in
furtherance of the pleadings already set out in the plaint. It is
contended that the amendment permitted by the impugned
order neither alters the scope of the suit nor introduces a new
cause of action. It is further submitted that even if the reliefs
sought to be incorporated by way of amendment give rise to an
issue of limitation, the amendment may be permitted, subject
to adjudication of such issue.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that an amendment
which is in furtherance of the existing pleadings ought to be
considered liberally to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to
facilitate comprehensive and complete adjudication of the suit.
3.2 It is also contended that the omission to seek the reliefs
now sought to be incorporated was attributable to an error on
the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint, and that such an
error ought not to prejudice the legitimate case of the party.
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.
5. The suit in O.S. No. 520/2010 was instituted seeking
partition. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs had
knowledge of the sale transactions which are now sought to be
challenged by way of amendment. This appears to be the
reason for arraying defendant No. 17, the subsequent
purchaser, as a party to the suit. The said transactions were
also specifically referred to in the written statement filed by
defendant No. 17 in the year 2019, wherein a series of sale
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
deeds were relied upon to claim rights in respect of the suit
schedule property, which is the subject matter of the proposed
amendment.
6. Thereafter, issues were framed on the basis of the
pleadings, and the suit proceeded to the stage of recording the
plaintiffs’ evidence. The first date fixed for the said purpose was
27.08.2024. However, the application seeking amendment
came to be filed only on 06.06.2025.
7. The application and the supporting affidavit merely state
that the amendment is necessary for the adjudication of the
suit. No specific averment or ground has been set out to
explain how the requirements of the proviso to Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC are satisfied. Once the trial has commenced,
compliance with the proviso is mandatory. The only explanation
offered is that the omission to seek the reliefs was due to an
oversight on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint.
Neither oversight nor inadvertence constitutes an exception to
the mandatory requirement stipulated in the proviso.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
8. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which came
into force with effect from 01.07.2002, mandates that, after
commencement of the trial, an amendment shall not be
permitted unless the Court is satisfied that, despite the exercise
of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of the trial. Even if the proposed
amendment is considered necessary for the complete
adjudication of the suit, such necessity, by itself, cannot
dispense with compliance with the statutory requirement.
Where the provision confers a right to seek amendment subject
to specified conditions, those conditions must necessarily be
satisfied. In the absence of such compliance, the necessity of
the amendment for complete adjudication of the dispute
cannot, by itself, justify its allowance.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Basavaraj v. Indira &
Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 705 , has categorically held that the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC prohibits the allowance
of an application for amendment after commencement of the
trial unless the Court concludes that, despite the exercise of
due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
before commencement of the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has further held that the burden lies on the party seeking
amendment after commencement of the trial to demonstrate
that, despite due diligence, the amendment could not have
been sought earlier.
10. In the present case, neither the pleadings nor the
submissions disclose any attempt to satisfy the requirements of
the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. If amendments are
permitted merely on the grounds of oversight, mistake or
inadvertence, the very object underlying the introduction of the
proviso would stand defeated.
11. The present case exemplifies the necessity of enforcing
the proviso in accordance with its terms. The suit was instituted
in the year 2010, and, even after the lapse of sixteen years, it
remains at the stage of the plaintiffs’ evidence. It is also
relevant to note that the present application is the second
application of its kind. These circumstances underscore the
very object sought to be achieved by the proviso, namely, to
prevent belated amendments after commencement of the trial
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
unless the statutory conditions are satisfied. To adopt a lenient
approach on grounds that are neither sustainable nor
acceptable in law would defeat the legislative intent underlying
the proviso.
12. The Trial Court, having failed to consider the mandatory
requirements of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, has
committed an error in allowing the amendment.
13. The amendment application, apart from seeking the
introduction of contentious prayers that would alter the very
nature of the suit, also sought correction of typographical
errors. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
fairly submits that the corrections sought in respect of the
typographical errors may be permitted. In view of the said
submission, the amendments sought to be introduced by way
of prayers (aa), (ab), (ac) and (ad) alone are disallowed. All
other corrections and amendments sought in the application
are permitted. To that extent, the order of the Trial Court shall
remain undisturbed.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59244
WP No. 9909 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010230522026
14. In view of the above, the following :
O R D E R
I. The writ petition is allowed in part .
II. The order dated 02.02.2026 passed in O.S. No.
520/2010 is hereby set aside to the extent observed
hereinabove.
III. I.A. No. 9 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC
stands rejected to the extent stated above.
IV. Though no specific prayer has been made for
expeditious disposal of the suit, in the larger interest of
justice and with a view to ensuring expeditious disposal,
the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within
one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6