Sri K Ramakrishna Reddy vs The Chief Secretary
2025 Latest Caselaw 1768 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1768 Kant
Judgement Date : 29 July, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Ramakrishna Reddy vs The Chief Secretary on 29 July, 2025

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:29048
                                                           WP No. 25848 of 2022


                       HC-KAR



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 25848 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
                       BETWEEN:

                       SRI. K.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
                       S/O LATE KEMPANNA,
                       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                       R/O KAMMAGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE,
                       MANDIKAL HOBLI,
                       CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562 101.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI. GANGADHAR., ADVOCATE FOR
                           SRI. HARISHKUMAR.M.S., ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.    THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
                             STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
                             VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

Digitally signed by    2.    THE SECRETARY OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: HIGH COURT         STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
OF KARNATAKA                 VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

                       3.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                             CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT,
                             CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.

                       4.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                             SUB-DIVISION, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK,
                             CHICKBALLAPUR -562 101.
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:29048
                                            WP No. 25848 of 2022


HC-KAR



5.     THE TAHSILDAR,
       TALUK OFFICE,
       CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.
                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA.K.PUJAR., HCGP)

        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

        THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
                          ORAL ORDER

Sri.Gangadhar., counsel on behalf of Sri.Harish

Kumar.M.S., for the petitioner and Sri.Neelakantappa K.Pujar.,

HCGP for the respondents have appeared in person.

2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of

Certiorari to quash the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the

Senior Civil Judge, Gudibande on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.314/2020

vide Annexure-E on several grounds as set-out in the

Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several

contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

with care.

NC: 2025:KHC:29048

HC-KAR

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for

declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation

to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being

contested by the defendants. Prior to the commencement of

trial, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of

the plaint by incorporating additional prayer and corresponding

pleadings. The application was opposed by the defendants. The

Trial Court rejected the application. Hence, the petitioner has

filed the present Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in

the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

The rejection of the application is contrary to the well-

settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the

following judgments:

I. SAMPATH KUMAR VS. AYYAKANNU AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN AIR 2002 SCC 3369.

II. M/S. REVAJEETU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. M/S.NARAYANASWAMY & SONS AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2009)10 SCC 848.

III. L.C.HANUMANTHAPPA VS. H.B. SHIVAKUMAR REPORTED IN (2016) 1 SCC 332.

IV. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED REPORTED IN AIR 2022 SC 4256.

NC: 2025:KHC:29048

HC-KAR

V. RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS VS. K.K.MODI & OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 2006 SC 1647.

4. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgments, in

the event that an amendment was opposed on the ground of

limitation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the proposed

amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but

shall be reckoned/considered on the date of the application and

the questions/issues regarding limitation would have to be kept

open to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of final

disposal of the suit. Under these circumstances, I am of the

considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial

Court deserves to be set aside and I.A.No.4 deserves to be

allowed subject to certain conditions.