Karnataka HC Allows Housing Firm to Add Title-Declaration Claim to Injunction Suit, Subject to ₹15,000 Costs; Limitation If Raised to Be Decided Separately

The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 459/2021 seeking a permanent injunction.

After the defendants disputed its title in their written statement, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to add a declaratory relief.

The amendment application was filed on 5 January 2026, before commencement of trial, and was rejected by the Trial Court on 14 July 2026.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, subject to its applicable requirements; its proviso concerning due diligence applies where trial has commenced.

Where a plaintiff’s title is disputed in an injunction suit, a declaration of title may be required, and an amendment needed for complete adjudication should generally be considered liberally.

In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, Civil Appeal No. 5909/2022, the Supreme Court held that an arguable limitation issue may be considered by framing a separate issue rather than refusing an amendment at the threshold.

Haramani Sahoo and others v. Lalita Nayak and others, Civil Appeal No. 13681/2026, dated 12 October 2026, was cited for the principles that an enlargement of factual or legal questions does not, by itself, fundamentally alter a suit’s nature, and that an arguable limitation question dependent on disputed facts need not defeat an amendment.

The proposed declaration arose from the defendants’ denial of the plaintiff’s title and was sought before trial commenced; accordingly, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was not attracted.

The Court considered the declaratory relief relevant to complete adjudication and held that the Trial Court’s reliance on one passage of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders did not account for the broader guidance in that judgment.

Although the amendment could raise limitation questions and cause inconvenience, those matters did not require rejection at the threshold; limitation could be separately framed and adjudicated.

The resulting prejudice and delay could instead be addressed through costs and directions for expedited disposal.

The amendment was made subject to payment of ₹15,000 in costs to the defendants before it is carried out.

If limitation is raised, the Trial Court must frame and decide an appropriate issue, and it was directed to conclude the suit within two years from the next hearing date.