Karnataka High Court
Sri Puttaraju T vs Sri Thimanna C on 9 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
WP No. 24065 of 2016
C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 24065 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 53588 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 24065/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PUTTARAJU T
S/O SRI THOPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT DINNEPALYA, KAGGALIPURA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 062.
2. SRI RANGASWAMY T
S/O SRI THOPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
Digitally a. JAYALAKSHMI
signed by
NANDINI M S W/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
Location: AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA b. NERENDRA KUMAR R
S/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
c. NATARAJU D.R.
S/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
d. BHAGYA R
D/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
WP No. 24065 of 2016
C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016
HC-KAR
e. KUMAR R
S/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
f. SRIDHAR R
S/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
ALL RESIDING AT
DINNEPALYA, KAGGALIPURA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. G.K. BHAVANA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI THIMANNA C
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
a. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O LATE THIMANNA C
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
b. SRI HANUMAIAH
S/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
c. SMT. ALUMELAMMA
D/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
d. SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
(a) TO (d) ALL RESIDING AT AGARA
THATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU - 560 062.
e. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
WP No. 24065 of 2016
C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016
HC-KAR
i. SMT. SHOBHA
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.604, THALAGHATTAPURA
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
POLICE STATION BACK SIDE
BENGALURU - 560 062.
ii. LAKSHMINARASAMMA
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
iii. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
iv. RANGA
S/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
(ii) TO (iv) ARE RESIDING AT
TAVAREKERE POST, MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
f. SRI MUNIRAMAPPA
S/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT AGARA,
THATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-1 (f);
V/O/D 13.06.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-1(b)
TO R-1(d) IS H/S; R-1(e) (i) TO R-1(e)(iv)
SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DTD
26.03.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ON I.A.NO.18
IN O.S.NO.805/2005 REJECTING THE APPLICATION ANNX-A, AND
ALLOW I.A.NO.18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
WP No. 24065 of 2016
C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. 53588/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PUTTARAJU T
S/O SRI THOPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT DINNEPALYA, KAGGALIPURA
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 062.
2. SRI RANGASWAMY T
S/O SRI THOPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
a. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
b. NERENDRA KUMAR R
S/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
c. NATARAJU D.R.
S/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
d. BHAGYA R
D/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
e. KUMAR R
S/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
f. SRIDHAR R
S/O DECEASED RANGASWAMY T
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
ALL RESIDING AT
DINNEPALYA, KAGGALIPURA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
WP No. 24065 of 2016
C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016
HC-KAR
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. G.K. BHAVAN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI THIMANNA C
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
a. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O LATE THIMANNA C
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
b. SRI HANUMAIAH
S/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
c. SMT. ALUMELAMMA
D/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
d. SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
(a) TO (d) ALL RESIDING AT AGARA
THATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU - 560 062.
e. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
NO.1(e)
i. SMT. SHOBHA
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.604, THALAGHATTAPURA
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
POLICE STATION BACK SIDE
BENGALURU - 560 062.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
WP No. 24065 of 2016
C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016
HC-KAR
ii. LAKSHMINARASAMMA
D/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
iii. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
NO.1e(iii)
iv. RANGA
S/O LATE RATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
(ii) TO (iv) ARE RESIDING AT
TAVAREKERE POST, MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
f. SRI MUNIRAMAPPA
S/O LATE C. THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT AGARA,
THATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADV., R-1(f);
V/O/D 22.07.2024 & 14.07.2025,
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-1(b) & R-1(c) IS H/S;
R-1 (d) & R-1 (e) (i) TO R-1(e)(iv)
SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DTD
27.09.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, IN I.A.NO.18 IN
O.S.NO.805/2005 REJECTING THE APPLICATION ANNX-A, AND
ALLOW I.A.NO.20 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
WP No. 24065 of 2016
C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. These two writ petitions arise between the same parties and from the same proceedings and therefore, both the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioners herein had filed OS No.805/2005 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, seeking relief of specific performance of agreement for sale dated 08.04.2002. In the said suit, I.A.No.18 was filed by the petitioners with a prayer to permit the petitioners to amend the boundary of the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendant by filing objections. The Trial Court by order dated 26.03.2016 had dismissed the said application and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court in WP No.24065/2016. Subsequently, during the pendency of WP No.24065/2016, IA No.20 was filed in OS No.805/2005 by the petitioners with a prayer to amend the schedule of the agreement for sale dated 08.04.2002, on the basis of which -8- NC: 2025:KHC:39922 WP No. 24065 of 2016 C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016 HC-KAR relief of specific performance was sought in the suit. The said application was also opposed by contesting defendant by filing objections and the Trial Court by order dated 27.09.2016 dismissed IA No.20 filed by the petitioners and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court in WP No.53588/2016.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the agreement for sale itself, there is a clause which provides that if there is any order passed by any court changing the description of the schedule to the agreement, then liberty is reserved to amend the schedule of the agreement of sale. She submits that subsequent to execution of agreement of sale dated 08.04.2002, an order was passed by the Land Tribunal based on which a survey has been done and the boundary of the schedule property has now been altered in view of the survey which was done subsequent to the execution of agreement for sale dated 08.04.2002. Under the circumstances, if the prayer made by the petitioners before the Trial Court to amend the schedule to the agreement of sale and to the plaint is not granted, the petitioners will be put to -9- NC: 2025:KHC:39922 WP No. 24065 of 2016 C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016 HC-KAR hardship and even in the event of there being any decree passed in favour of the petitioners, it would be difficult to execute the same. In support of her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PURAN RAM VS BHAGURAM & ANOTHER - (2008)4 SCC 102 and M.REVANNA VS ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES & OTHERS - (2019)4 SCC 332.
5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 08.04.2002 was filed by the petitioners in the year 2005. After completing recording of evidence of all the parties, the Trial Court had posted the suit for arguments in the month of December, 2013. Thereafter, IA Nos.15 & 16 were filed by petitioners which were rejected by the Trial Court on 21.01.2016. Subsequently, IA No.17 was filed in the month of February 2016 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC which was also dismissed by the Trial Court on 15.02.2016. Thereafter, IA No.18 was filed on 01.03.2016 with a prayer to amend the boundaries of the suit schedule property, contending that in view of the survey that was done
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39922 WP No. 24065 of 2016 C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016 HC-KAR subsequently, the boundary of the suit schedule property was altered.
6. Material on record would go to show that along with the application IA No.18 which was filed on 01.03.2016, petitioners had produced copy of the survey report which was prepared in the year 2002 itself. In the application which is filed in the year 2016 in a suit which was posted for arguments in the month of December 2013, the petitioners have not given any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 14 years in filing the application seeking amendment of the boundaries to the suit schedule property.
7. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the case on hand, the petitioners have failed to show that in spite of due diligence, they could not file the application at an earlier stage. Learned counsel has submitted that certified copy of survey report was obtained by petitioners only in the year 2013. Even
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39922 WP No. 24065 of 2016 C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016 HC-KAR thereafter, there is a delay of three years in filing the application.
8. As stated earlier, the suit was posted for arguments in month of December 2013 itself and the present application IA No.18 was filed in the month of March 2016 and in the said application, absolutely no explanation is offered for the inordinate delay of more than 14 years in filing the application. After dismissal of IA No.18, which is challenged by the petitioners before this Court in W.P.No.24065/2016, the petitioners have filed IA No.20 before the Trial Court seeking amendment of the boundaries to the schedule of the agreement for sale. Though Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not provide for amendment of any instruments or documents and Order VI Rule 17 CPC only provides for amendment of the pleadings, under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, in the event if it is shown that wrong description of the property in the document was mentioned due to mutual mistake, then the Court can consider the request for amendment of the sale agreement.
9. In Puran Ram's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that amendment of sale agreement is permissible,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39922 WP No. 24065 of 2016 C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016 HC-KAR provided wrong description in the sale agreement was due to mutual mistake. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that wrong description of the boundaries to the schedule property was by mutual mistake committed, but according to the petitioners, in view of the survey report which was prepared subsequently, the boundaries of the suit schedule property has been changed. Therefore, the judgment relied upon in Puran Ram's case supra, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. In Revanna's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial is not permissible, except under conditions stated in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is held in the said case that the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not be claimed as contemplated under the provision. In the case on hand, as stated earlier, petitioners have failed to show due diligence on their part, and in the application filed seeking amendment, the inordinate
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39922 WP No. 24065 of 2016 C/W WP No. 53588 of 2016 HC-KAR delay of 14 years in filing the application seeking amendment has not been explained.
11. It is relevant to note the fact that, in the present case, applications after applications are filed by petitioners even after the suit was posted for final arguments in the month of December 2013. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing IA Nos.18 & 20 filed by the petitioners, and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order which calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, writ petitions stand dismissed. It is needless to state that endeavour shall be made by Trial Court to dispose off the suit expeditiously.
12. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41