SMT PARVATHAMMA K Y vs SRI Y PRAKASH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 30623 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PARVATHAMMA.K.Y.
W/O SRI. JAYACHANDRA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.97, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, OPP SAI BABA TEMPLE,
TH
7 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 095.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR.B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. Y.PRAKASH
S/O LATE YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
ST
R/O NO.112, 1 CROSS,
ST
1 MAIN, DOMMALUR,
BENGALURU-560 086.
2. SRI. MUKESH SOLANKI
S/O GOVINDAN LAL,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O NO.7, 80 FEET ROAD,
ST
1 MAIN, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 095.
3. SRI. R.VENKATESH
S/O LATE C.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ST
R/O NO.265, 1 B MAIN ROAD,
TH
8 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 095.
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH.S., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 & R2-SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.08.2024, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU IN OS NO.
1338/2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A
NO.2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated
24.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.II in O.S.No.1338/2016 by the
II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned
Order’). By the Impugned Order, the application filed under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was dismissed by the learned
Trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits
that a suit was filed for injunction. During the pendency of
the suit, the respondents/defendants trespassed and took
over possession of the schedule property. He thus submits
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
that in view of these changed circumstances, the
petitioner/plaintiff was forced to file the application under
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the CPC’) seeking an amendment in the plaint
bringing out the subsequent events on record. However, it
is contended that the learned Trial Court has dismissed this
application without examining the reason for the
amendment.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants on
the other hand contends that no fresh pleading has been
introduced in the application and that the pleadings in the
application already form part of the plaint. Reliance in this
behalf is placed on paragraph 10 of the Impugned Order. In
addition, learned counsel submits that no due diligence as
is requisite under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been set
out in the application. Reliance in this behalf is placed on a
judgment of the Coordinate Bench in K.Nagaraj and
1
others Vs. C.Nataraja and another . Accordingly, he
1
WP No.18876/2023 decided on 28.08.2023
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed
the application.
4. This Court has examined the record. The suit was filed
on 11.11.2026. The prayers in the plaint as well as the
schedule properties are set out below:-
“WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that, this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to pass a Judgment and Decree of Permanent
Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the
Defendant:
(a) Restraining the Defendant from interfering with the
peaceful possession. and enjoyment of the plaintiff over
the suit schedule property; AND
(b) Grant any other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case
including awarding of cost of this proceeding in the
interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site
No.84, Katha No.43, Property assessment No.43,
Situated at Naganathpura village, begur hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, Measuring east to west 30 feet, North to
south 40 feet, totally measuring 1200 Sq.ft and bounded
on:
East by: Site No.5
West by : Site No.83
North by : Road
South by : Site No.97”
[Emphasis Supplied]
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
5 . This Court has examined the application under Order
6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The application sets out that during
the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff visited the
property in the year 2022 and she learnt that defendant
No.3 had put up a shed in the suit schedule property and
that the defendant No.3 is trying to sell the suit schedule
property. Thus, two amendments are sought for. Firstly, to
insert an additional paragraph setting out this new
circumstance and secondly to add new prayers.
5.1. In his affidavit, the petitioner/plaintiff has explained
that the event is a subsequent event that has occurred in
the year 2022. The relevant extract of the application as
well as affidavit are set out below:
“ APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION 151
OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit
the plaintiff above named humbly prays that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to permit the plaintiff to amend the
plaint as follows, in the interest of justice and equity.
Proposed amendment sought for:
01. To insert below para graph after para 17
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
17 (a). During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff had
visited the suit schedule property in the year 2022
and learnt that the defendant no.3 had put up the
shed in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is not
residing near the schedule property taking advantage of
the same the defendant no.3 has put up the shed and in
collusion of the concerned authority have got electricity
connection. Upon the strength of the alleged forged
and fraudulent documents the defendant no.3 may
sell/encumber the suit schedule property to third
party, it is just and necessary to allow the accompanying
application in order to avoid the multiplicity of
proceedings. The said amendment sought for is necessary
to determine the real question in controversy between the
parties.
02. At Page 5 to insert new prayer in the prayer
column after prayer
(a)
(aa) To declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of
the suit schedule property.
(aaa) To direct the defendant No.3 to hand over the
vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the
plaintiff.
(aaaa) Mandatory injunction, directing the defendant no.3
to demolish the shed constructed over the suit schedule
property.
AFFIDAVIT
XXXX
01. XXXX
02.XXXX
03. I state that, during the pendency of the suit I
had visited the suit schedule property in the year
2022 and learnt that the defendant no.3 had put up
the shed in the suit schedule property. I am not
residing near the schedule property taking
advantage of the same the defendant no.3 has put
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
up the shed and in collusion of the concerned
authority have got electricity connection. Upon the
strength of the alleged forged and fraudulent documents
the defendant no.3 may sell/encumber the suit schedule
property to third party, it is just and necessary to allow
the accompanying application in order to avoid the
multiplicity of proceedings. The said amendment sought
for is necessary to determine the real question in
controversy between the parties. I state that, the
amendment now sought for by me does not take away
any admission made by me in the above suit.
04. I state that, now by this accompanying application I
have sought for the relief of declaration, possession and
mandatory injunction. Due to the changed
circumstance and also I have denied the title in
which the defendant no.3 is claiming, the defendant
no.3 upon the fraudulent and forged document has
acquired the suit schedule property and may
create/encumber the suit schedule property.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
6. No doubt that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of
CPC provide that when a trial is commenced, due diligence
must be shown. However, where the applicant is relying on
a subsequent event, and the subsequent event is necessary
to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is incumbent for the
averment to be examined. Whether or not the subsequent
event in fact took place would be a matter to be proved in
trial. The petitioner/plaintiff has in his application contended
a change in circumstances at the subsequent stage and to
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
that extent such change could not possibly have been
brought on record earlier. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17
of the CPC, in these circumstances, would not be applicable.
7. The argument of the respondents/defendants that the
amendment is not necessary in view of para 12 of the plaint
also cannot be sustained. An examination of paragraph
No.12 of the plaint also shows that it references a creation
of a fraudulent GPA with an intention to sell. However, the
averments that have been set out in the application are not
with relation to the fraudulent GPA. Paragraph No.12 of the
plaint is set out below:
“12. The plaintiff submits that, the defendant No.1 have
created a fraudulent and forged document i.e. General
Power of Attorney dated 12.04.1993 with an intention to
sell the schedule property and deceive the plaintiff right
title and interest over the schedule property. All the
defendant with an intention to cheat the plaintiff created
the fraud documents.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. The Supreme Court in Haramani Sahoo v. Lalita
2
Nayak , while considering the scope of amendment of
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 2123
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC at the post-
trial stage has held that an amendment sought after
commencement of trial may be permitted where the
applicant furnishes a sufficient explanation demonstrating
that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been
raised earlier. In addition, it has been held that if the
proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication
of the real controversy without fundamentally altering the
nature and character of the suit, the amendment ought to
be allowed. The Supreme Court further held that where the
proposed amendment bears a direct nexus with the existing
controversy and the prejudice occasioned to the opposite
party can be addressed by permitting additional pleadings
and, where appropriate, imposing costs, the amendment
may be allowed, subject to satisfaction of the statutory
requirement of due diligence. The relevant extract is set out
below:
“10. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes
it clear that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC confers a
discretionary power upon the Court to permit
amendments which are necessary for determining
the real questions in controversy between the
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
parties. However, once the trial has commenced, the
exercise of such power is subject to the additional
requirement that the Court must be satisfied that
despite due diligence, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
The object of the provision is to enable the Court to
effectively and completely adjudicate upon the
dispute between the parties, while at the same time,
ensuring that a party does not introduce at a belated
stage, matters which could, with due diligence, have
been raised earlier.
xxx xxx xxx
12. In the present case, there is no dispute that the
application for amendment was filed after
commencement of the trial and therefore, the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is attracted.
The fact that the amendment was sought at a
belated stage is, by itself, not determinative. The
principal question is whether, the appellants have
shown that despite due diligence, the matters now
sought to be introduced could not have been raised
before the commencement of the trial. The further
question is whether the proposed amendment
would fundamentally alter the nature and character
of the suit.
13. As regards the requirement of due diligence, the
original suit concerns the right, title and interest in and
possession of the very property which forms the subject
matter of the proposed amendment. The proposed
pleading relating to the compromise decree passed in T.S.
No. 105 of 1998 arises from the allegation that the said
decree affects a portion of the very suit property, namely,
Ac. 0.02 decimals comprised in Hal Plot No. 3371/4050.
The case of the original plaintiff is that he was not a
party to the said suit and was unaware of the
compromise decree. It is stated that only upon
obtaining certified copies of the plaint and final
decree on 22.06.2020, did he come to know of the
compromise in respect of suit plot No. 3371/4050
measuring Ac. 0.04 decimals along with other
properties between Defendant No. 8 and others. It
is further stated that the written statement filed by
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 did not disclose the source
of title of their vendors.
13.1. The significance of these circumstances
cannot be overlooked. The proposed amendment is
not founded upon a transaction or an event wholly
unconnected with the subject matter of the suit, but
upon a subsequent discovery of a decree which,
according to the original plaintiff, has a bearing
upon the title to a portion of the very property in
dispute . The record indicating that certified copies of the
plaint and final decree were obtained on 22.06.2020 is a
relevant circumstance in assessing the plea of due
diligence. At this stage, it is not necessary for the
Court to finally determine whether the plaintiff's
assertion regarding the date of knowledge is
ultimately correct. What is required is to examine
whether sufficient explanation has been furnished
for not raising the matter before commencement of
the trial.
13.2. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we
are of the view that the explanation furnished by the
appellants cannot, at this stage, be characterised as a
mere omission, inadvertence or negligence. The
subsequent discovery of the compromise proceedings,
coupled with the assertion that the original plaintiff was
not a party to those proceedings and that the source of
title of the vendors was not disclosed in the written
statement, provides a sufficient basis for accepting
the plea of due diligence for the purposes of the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The statutory
requirement is therefore satisfied.
xxx xxx xxx
14.1. The real inquiry is whether the amendment
introduces a distinct and independent controversy
having no connection with the original cause of
action, or whether it merely brings on record
additional facts and consequential reliefs having a
direct nexus with the existing controversy. On the
facts of the present case, the proposed amendment falls
within the latter category. The subject matter of the
proposed amendment and the original suit
substantially overlap, and the adjudication of the
proposed issue would have a direct bearing upon
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
the title and possession claimed in respect of the
suit property.
xxx xxx xxx
19. The objection as to prejudice also does not
warrant rejection of the amendment. The prejudice
relied upon by the respondents principally arises
from the additional factual and legal issues which
they would now be required to meet. Such prejudice
can adequately be addressed by permitting the
respondents to file an additional written statement
and where necessary, by imposing appropriate
costs. The mere fact that an amendment requires
the opposite party to meet additional pleadings or
issues does not, by itself, warrant refusal of the
amendment where the amendment is necessary for
a complete and effective adjudication of the
controversy.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. As stated above, the amendment sought to be brought
on record is a subsequent event. Thus, no amount of due
diligence could have made it possible for the petitioner to
seek it earlier.
10. In any event, given the settled position in law that
even post-trial amendments may be allowed with a view to
do substantive justice qua the parties and for the reasons
stated above, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained and
accordingly it is set aside. The application filed under Order
6 Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed.
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60069
WP No. 30623 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010630132024
11. , The writ petition is allowed in the aforegoing terms.
All pending applications stand closed.
12. The respondents/defendants shall however have the
liberty to file their amended written statement and take all
objections in this regard.
13. It is clarified that this Court has not examined on the
merits of the matter. All rights and contentions of the
parties are left open to be decided by the learned Trial
Court.
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
YN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
13