Karnataka HC Lets Plaintiff Add Ownership And Possession Claims After Alleging Defendant Built Shed During Suit

The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction concerning a property at Naganathpura village.

She later sought amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, stating that during the suit she visited the property in 2022 and discovered that defendant No. 3 had constructed a shed there and obtained an electricity connection; she also alleged a risk of sale or encumbrance.

The proposed amendments added those averments and sought declarations of ownership, vacant possession, and mandatory injunction for removal of the shed.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on 24 August 2024. The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC gives the court discretion to permit amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy. After commencement of trial, the proviso requires the applicant to satisfy the court that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

The Court relied on Haramani Sahoo v. Lalita Nayak, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2123, which states that a post-commencement amendment may be allowed where due diligence is established, the amendment has a direct nexus with the existing controversy, and it does not fundamentally alter the suit; prejudice may be addressed through additional pleadings and, where appropriate, costs.

The Court treated the alleged construction of the shed and related developments as subsequent events that could not have been pleaded before they occurred; accordingly, it held that due diligence could not have enabled the petitioner to raise them earlier.

It also rejected the contention that the plaint’s existing reference to a allegedly fraudulent GPA made the amendments unnecessary, finding that the proposed averments concerned different matters.

The additional facts and consequential reliefs related to the same property and were relevant to the dispute over its title and possession. Any prejudice to the defendants could be addressed by allowing an amended written statement.

The defendants were given liberty to file an amended written statement and raise all objections; the Court expressed no view on the merits, leaving all rights and contentions open for determination by the Trial Court.