SRI B S GOPI vs SRI G N MADUSUDHAN

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION NO. 2714 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. B.S. GOPI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHIVARAM,
R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE,
CHANRAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129.

2. B.S. DIWAKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHIVARAM
R/OF BUDIEGERE VILLAGE,
CHANRAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129.
…PETITIONERS











Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI. UDAY K.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. SRI. G.N. MADUSUDHAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE G. NARAYANASWAMY
R/AT NO. 3520/C (6), 1ST A CROSS,
C BLOCK, GAYATHRINAGAR,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



BENGALURU - 560 021.

2. G.N. MANOHAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE G. NARAYANASWAMY
R/AT NO. 3520/C (6), 1ST A CROSS,
C BLOCK, GAYATHRINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 021.

3. SMT. PADMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O LATE G. NANJEGOWDA

4. SMT. RASHMI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O LATE G. NANJEGOWDA

5. SRI. PAVAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE G. NANJEGOWDA

RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT BUDIEGERE VILLAGE,
CHANRAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129.

6. G. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOPALAIAH,
R/AT NO. 65, 2ND CROSS,
LAKSHMI NAGAR, KIRLOSKAR COLONY,
3RD STAGE, BASAVESWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



7. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O LATE G. SHIVARAM

8. SMT. B.S. SUNITHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O LATE G. SHIVARAM

RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE
R/AT BUDIEGERE VILLAGE,
CHANRAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129.

9. SMT. B. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
D/O LATE G. MARIYAMMA AND BASAPPA
R/AT VARADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129.

10. SMT. G. SUSHEELAMMA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
W/O LATE CHIKKAMARIYAPPA
R/AT MANCHAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BUDIGERE POST, JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

11. SMT. P.N. PANKAJA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
D/O LATE JAYALAKSHMI @ JAYAMMA,
W/O B. SUBRAMANI,
R/AT NO. 60, NARAYANAPURA ROAD,
BETTAHALASURU,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



BENGALURU - 562 157.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6;
SRI. MALLAIAH M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO 11)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07-12-2024 PASSED IN O.S. NO.
615/2017 ON I.A. NO.09 BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI C/C II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AT ANNEXURE-
E AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS AT ANNX-C DT: 7/12/24 AS PRAYED FOR IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed calling in question the order dated
07.12.2024 passed in O.S. No.615/2017 by the learned III
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby
the application filed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Order

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
amendment of the written statement, came to be rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the Trial Court, while rejecting the application, has
proceeded to examine the merits of the amendment sought,
which is impermissible at the stage of considering an
application for amendment. Learned counsel further submits
that amendment of pleadings ought to be liberally permitted
where the proposed amendment is relevant for the effective
adjudication of the suit and is necessary to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings.
3. It is submitted that, at the time of filing the
application for amendment, the suit was at the stage of framing
of issues and the trial had not commenced. It is, therefore,
contended that the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting
the application. In support of the said submission, learned
counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Usha Devi V/s Rijwan Ahamd reported in
(2008)3 SCC 717 .

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the trial commences upon framing of
issues. It is submitted that the issues were framed on
02.09.2024 and, therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is attracted. It is further
submitted that the application does not contain any pleading
explaining the exercise of due diligence on the part of the
petitioners. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj
V/s Indira & Others , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705 .
5. Considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
6. The petitioners filed the application seeking
amendment of the written statement to introduce certain
additional defences. On perusal of the affidavit accompanying
the application, it is evident that there is no explanation as to
why the matters sought to be introduced by way of amendment
were not pleaded in the written statement originally filed. The
only reason assigned is inadvertence, coupled with the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



assertion that the proposed amendments are indispensable for
defending the suit.
7. It is no doubt well settled that amendment of
pleadings, particularly a written statement, may be permitted
liberally where the proposed amendment is relevant and
necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute.
However, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, places a restriction on permitting an
amendment after commencement of the trial. Unless the Court
is satisfied that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the party
seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before
commencement of the trial, such amendment cannot be
permitted.
8. In the present case, the affidavit accompanying the
application for amendment does not state that the matters
sought to be introduced by way of amendment could not have
been raised in the original written statement despite the
exercise of due diligence. There is also no material placed
before the Court to establish such a circumstance.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Basavaraj supra,
has reiterated that, unless the Court comes to the conclusion
that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before commencement of the trial, the
amendment cannot be permitted. It has further been held that
the burden is upon the party seeking amendment after
commencement of the trial to demonstrate that, despite the
exercise of due diligence, the amendment could not have been
sought earlier. It is also well settled that amendment of
pleadings cannot be claimed as a matter of right in all
circumstances.
10. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, this
Court is of the opinion that the amendment sought by the
petitioners does not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the Trial Court, while rejecting the application, has
proceeded to consider the merits of the proposed amendment,
which, according to him, is impermissible in view of the
judgment relied upon by the petitioners. It is further submitted

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



that the Trial Court has not specifically considered the proviso
to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while
rejecting the application.
12. It is true that the Trial Court has made certain
observations with regard to the merits of the proposed
amendment and has also observed that no valid reasons have
been assigned in support of the application and that no material
has been produced to substantiate the proposed amendment.
However, the fact remains that the issues had already been
framed on 02.09.2024. Consequently, the trial had
commenced, and the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, stood attracted.
13. Once the requirements of the proviso are not
satisfied, the application for amendment cannot be allowed
merely on the ground that the proposed amendment may be
relevant for the adjudication of the dispute.
14. This Court finds no error in the order passed by the
Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55948
WP No. 2714 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010041742025



15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE


VN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4