Karnataka High CourtCivil Procedure and EvidenceConstitutional Law

An order rejecting a plaint amendment without reasons is liable to be set aside.

MALLASHAv.HUSSAINI S/O DHANJYA DIED BY LRS PULLYA

An order rejecting a plaint amendment without reasons is liable to be set aside.. MALLASHA vs HUSSAINI S/O DHANJYA DIED BY LRS PULLYA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the First Appellate Court’s rejection of the amendment application, without assigning reasons beyond referring to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, could stand.

The court held

The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 2 September 2025 rejecting IA No. 8 was set aside.

It also directed

IA No. 8 was restored to its original position for reconsideration by the First Appellate Court along with the merits of the matter.

If the court concludes that the application should be allowed, it must pass an appropriate order and give the respondents an opportunity to file an additional written statement, if any.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged the First Appellate Court’s order rejecting their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint.

pp. 5–7

They sought to correct what they described as a typographical error in the family pedigree, contending that the correction was necessary to determine the real dispute.

pp. 5–7

Respondents opposed the application, including on the ground that the petitioners had admitted the relevant relationship in cross-examination.

pp. 5–7

The First Appellate Court rejected the application, referring to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC; the petitioners then invoked Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 5–7

02Issues

i.Whether the First Appellate Court’s rejection of the amendment application, without assigning reasons beyond referring to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, could stand.

p. 7

ii.Whether the High Court should itself allow the amendment or remit the application for reconsideration by the First Appellate Court.

pp. 7–8

03Law Applied

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings, and its proviso imposes a restriction on amendments sought after trial has commenced.

pp. 4, 7–8

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 4, 7–8

The order does not cite any precedent; its reasoning reflects the requirement that a court provide reasons for its decision on an application rather than reject it without meaningful consideration.

pp. 4, 7–8

04Reasoning

The High Court noted that the amendment application sought to correct the family pedigree and was presented as necessary to resolve the real dispute, while the respondents raised objections concerning maintainability and admissions made in cross-examination.

pp. 6–8

The First Appellate Court’s order did not engage with those matters or explain its decision, but merely referred to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

pp. 6–8

The High Court therefore held that the rejection was without application of mind.

pp. 6–8

It did not determine whether the amendment should ultimately be allowed; it directed the First Appellate Court to reconsider the application.

pp. 6–8

05Holding

The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 2 September 2025 rejecting IA No. 8 was set aside.

p. 8

IA No. 8 was restored to its original position for reconsideration by the First Appellate Court along with the merits of the matter.

p. 8

If the court concludes that the application should be allowed, it must pass an appropriate order and give the respondents an opportunity to file an additional written statement, if any.

p. 8
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MALLASHAvsHUSSAINI S/O DHANJYA DIED BY LRS PULLYA

Karnataka High Court · September 25, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment