SRI. JOSEPH STANLEY vs MISS FARHEEN AYESHA

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59641
WP No. 5546 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010113482024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT PETITION NO. 5546 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. JOSEPH STANLEY
S/O LATE VINCENT,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO-20,
GROUND FLOOR, MARUTHI ENCLAVE,
HORAMAVU AGARA,
BENGALURU – 560 043.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CUCKOO DELHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MISS FARHEEN AYESHA
D/O LATE MOHAMMAD SALEEM
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

2. MISS KUBRA MARIAM
S/O LATE MOHAMMAD SALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

3. MASTER K.MOHAMMED AYAAN
S/O LATE MOHAMMAD SALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

PETITIONER NO.3, SINCE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS ELDER SISTER,
RESPONDENT NO-1.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 40,
ST ND
1 CROSS, ANJINAPPA 2 PHASE,












Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

1

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59641
WP No. 5546 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010113482024


SANGAM ENCLAVE
EXTENSION KOTHANUR,
BENGALURU – 560 077.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHIRALLI DILDAR JAINUSAB., ADVOCATE)

*
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ANNEXURE-E ORDER DATED 12.2.2024 ON I.A. NO.4, IN
S.C.NO.15134/2022 BEFORE THE XIV ADDL. JUDGE COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-19) MAYO HALL UNIT AT BANGALORE
AND ALLOW THE IA NO. 4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND
CALL FOR RECORDS IN S.C.NO.15134/2022 BEFORE THE XV
ADDL. JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-19) MAYO
HALL UNIT AT BANGALORE.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 12.02.2024 passed by the learned XV Additional
Small Cause Judge & XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru on an
application [I.A.No.4] in S.C.No.15134/2022 [hereinafter
referred to as the Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned
Order, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant
under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code
2

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59641
WP No. 5546 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010113482024


of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the
“CPC”] has been dismissed.

2. Although the present petition is posted for Orders,
given the pendency of the matter and with the consent of
the parties, it is taken up for hearing and disposal.

3. The challenge has been made by the petitioner/
defendant in the suit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has
contended that he had raised grounds in his application
and had set out the reasons for filing his application. He
submits that the cross-examination had just been
concluded and that because the Agreement had been
misplaced that he could not file the application earlier.
Reliance in this behalf is placed on paragraph 3 of the
affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.4.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, on
the other hand, contends that no grounds have been made
out in terms of Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. He
3

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59641
WP No. 5546 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010113482024


submits that the affidavit filed along with the application
does not justify the test of due diligence.

6. Briefly, a suit for ejectment, recovery of possession
and recovery of arrears of rent was filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs on 25.07.2022. The petitioner/
defendant filed the Written Statement under Order VIII
Rule 1 of the CPC on 19.10.2022. Subsequently, an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by
the petitioner/defendant on 14.07.2023, seeking to amend
his Written Statement. The application [I.A.No.4] was
opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs, by filing objections,
inter alia on the ground that since the application
[I.A.No.4] was filed after the commencement of the trial,
in accordance with the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC, due diligence was not shown. In addition, it was
stated in the Objections Statement that the application
was filed belatedly only with a view to overcome the
admissions made in the cross.

4

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59641
WP No. 5546 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010113482024


7. The learned Trial Court examined the application filed
and gave its finding relying on the judgments of the
Supreme Court that the application filed belatedly, could
not be entertained, in view of the Proviso to Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC. In addition, it was held that when the
petitioner/defendant filed the Written Statement, he had
the knowledge of the Agreement, but the application was
filed after the cross-examination of PW-1.

8. The relevant extract of the order of the learned Trial
Court is set out below:
“14. This amendment application is filed when the Pw.1
denied alleged agreement in the cross examination, hence
in view of issues raised and evidence led by the Plaintiff
this application was filed at belated stage. When the
defendant filed Written statement he was having
knowledge about alleged agreement, but this
application is filed only to fill up the lacuna after the
cross examination of Pw.1. In this regard the Hon'ble
Apex court elaborately discussed in the case reported in
(2006) 12 SCC-1. Wherein it is held that,

"The issue of belated attempt to amend the written
statement, in the context issues raised and evidence
lead by affidavit came up for consideration before Apex
Court in (2006) 12 SCC 1 and the Apex Court held that
in the absence of supporting reason for delay, the
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 is attracted and hence the
proposed amendment was disallowed. Apex Court held
that the word "shall" appearing in Order 6 Rule 17
5

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59641
WP No. 5546 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010113482024


could be read as "may". The phrase or the words
"commencement of trial" shall mean when the issues
are settled and case is set down for recording evidence.
It is held that non seeking of amendment as
appropriate stage in the manner envisaged by law has
disentitled the appellant."
xxx xxx xxx

24. An application Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC must
not be allowed only to fill up the lacuna of the
parties or to the disadvantage or unfair advantage
to the party. The amendment must not be allowed for
retrial or to change the nature of the case against either
of the parties. Hence the proposed amendment sought by
the defendant it goes to the root cause of the case.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

9. It is also apposite, at this stage, to extract the
relevant paragraph setting out due diligence in the matter.
Paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the
application [I.A.No.4] is set out below:
[
“3. I submit that, the lease agreement dated 10-08-
2020 was misplaced and that I had not furnished
copy of the same to my advocate and that I traced
the same recently. As such my advocate was
unable to plead the same in written statement. Is
purchaser of the suit schedule property and defendants 2
to 6 are the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule
property of above.”
[Emphasis Supplied]

6

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59641
WP No. 5546 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010113482024


It is no longer res integra that proviso to Order VI Rule 17
of the CPC is not a directory provision but is a mandatory
one. In order to ensure that the pleadings are not
amended at any stage, the amendment as was inserted in
the CPC in the year 2002. Where the amendment sought
is at the post-trial stage, due diligence ought to have been
shown by the petitioner/defendant.

10. An examination of the record reflects that the only
ground taken was that the agreement was misplaced and
now it has been found. No actual explanation has been set
out for not bringing this amendment on record, earlier. It
is an undisputed case of the petitioner/defendant that he
is residing in a premises which does not belong to him.
This Court agrees with the contention of the learned Trial
Court that after the cross-examination of the
petitioner/defendant was completed, the amendments
cannot be made to fill up the lacuna or admissions.

11. In view of the aforegoing discussion, this Court finds
no ground for interference in the Impugned Order. The
7

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59641
WP No. 5546 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010113482024


petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications
stand closed.

12. The learned counsel for the parties submit that they
will not take any unnecessary adjournments in the matter.
The parties are bound down by the statement made by
their counsels today.




(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
BMV*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
8