Karnataka High Court
Smt. K R Shashi vs Smt. N Asha on 15 January, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1532
WP No. 10934 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10934 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. K R SHASHI
W/O SRI MADHUSUDHAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO 152, 55
CAVUERY LAYOUT,THAVAREKERE MAIN
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560029.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G K SHIVA PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. N ASHA
W/O SRI SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO 90A, RING ROAD
NAGAWARA, BANGALORE 560077
Digitally signed
by HEMALATHA AND ALSO AT
A NO 45/A, CHALUKYA LAYOUT
Location: HIGH NEAR RING ROAD JUNCTION
COURT OF ARABIC COLLEGE POST
KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560045
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. Y.P. VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI., ADVOCATE
FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1)
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS 25868/2020 ON THE FILE OF
THE LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1532
WP No. 10934 of 2024
UNIT BANGALORE (CCH 58).2) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 12/03/2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 1/2023 IN OS
25868/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT BANGALORE (CCH 58) AT
ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff
challenging the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the LVII
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on
I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.25868/2020, whereby the
Trial Court has dismissed the said application.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction. After
issuance of suit summons, the defendant has appeared
through counsel and filed written statement. On the basis
of the same, the Trial Court has framed issues. The parties
have adduced evidence and thereafter, the matter has
NC: 2025:KHC:1532
been posed for arguments. At this stage, the plaintiff has
filed I.A.No.1/2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for
amendment seeking relief of declaration and possession.
The Trial Court, by impugned order has dismissed the said
application on the ground of delay in filing the application.
Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has
contended that after the plaintiff has filed the suit,
defendant has filed written statement denying the title of
the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed I.A.1/2023
for amendment of plaint seeking relief of declaration and
possession. He further contended that the petitioner will
not adduce any evidence either oral and documentary on
the fresh reliefs sought to be amended. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court
passed in W.P.No.1049/2024 disposed of on 05.04.2024.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-defendant
has contended that the suit is filed for bare injunction.
NC: 2025:KHC:1532
After service of suit summons, the defendant has filed the
written statement on 18.08.2020. Even after lapse of 3
years, the plaintiff has not filed any application for
amendment. When the matter came to be posted for
arguments, the plaintiff has filed the application i.e.,
I.A.No.1/2023 for amendment only in order to drag the
matter. At this stage, the application filed by the plaintiff
cannot be entertained. In support of her contention, she
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr. Vs.
Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi & Ors. reported in AIR 2019
SC 1119.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ papers.
6. The plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction.
After the defendant has filed the written statement
denying the title, the plaintiff has filed the application for
amendment of plaint. There is delay in filing the
NC: 2025:KHC:1532
application. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the
application.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
instead of filing another suit, he has filed the application
for amendment of plaint in order to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings. He has undertaken that the plaintiff will not
adduce any further evidence either oral or documentary on
the fresh releifs to be amended.
8. Under the circumstances and in the interest of
justice, this Court is of the opinion that the application is
liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
However, the delay or inaction on the part of the plaintiff
can be suitably met with by imposing exemplary cost
payable to the defendant.
9. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:1532
b) The order dated order dated 12.03.2024 passed
by the LVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Order 6
Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in
O.S.No.25868/2020 is set aside.
c) I.A.No.1/2023 filed by plaintiff is allowed, subject
to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the
defendant on the next date of hearing before the
Trial Court. Payment of cost is a condition
precedent.
d) It is made clear that the plaintiff is not permitted
to adduce any evidence either oral or
documentary on the fresh relief sought to be
amended to the plaint.
e) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, not later than six months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
DM
