Karnataka High Court
Sri M Nagappa vs Sri Y S Eshwara Setty on 3 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23863
WP No. 22115 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 22115 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. NAGAPPA
S/O KOLIMUDDAIAH,
AGED 55 YEARS,
2. SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED 75 YEARS,
3. SRI. NAGAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED 55 YEARS,
4. SRI. CHIKKA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED 35 YEARS,
Digitally signed
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
by OBALAPURA VILLAGE,
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA Y.N.HOSAKOTE HOBLI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PAVAGADA TALUK,
KARNATAKA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561202
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. Y.S. ESHWARA SETTY
S/O LATE Y. SATHYANARAYANA SETTY,
AGED 70 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23863
WP No. 22115 of 2019
HC-KAR
2. SMT Y.E.NIRMALAMMA
W/O LATE Y.S. ESHWARA SETTY,
AGED 65 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
OBALAPURA VILLAGE,
Y.N.HOSAKOTE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561202
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
05.04.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.11 AND 12 FILED UNDER ORDER VI
RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.53/2014, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA, VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
i) quash the order dated 05.04.2019
passed on IA Nos.11 & 12 filed Under
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in
O.S.No.53/2014, on the file of Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC, Pavagada, vide
Annexure-H, by issue of writ of
certiorari.
NC: 2025:KHC:23863
HC-KAR
ii) issue any appropriate writ, order or
direction as deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction.
The petitioners/defendants filed detailed written statement
denying the averments of the plaint. Issues were framed and
parties have adduced the evidence and arguments were
concluded. When the suit was posted for reply arguments, the
respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.Nos.XI and XII seeking
amendment of the plaint. It is submitted that the proposed
amendment clearly indicates that the respondents/plaintiffs
intend to take different stand from the stand taken in the
plaint. In one breathe, the respondents/plaintiffs claimed that
they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and now they are seeking to delete those words in the
plaint and also seeking to change the suit schedule property by
changing the extent, which in result, would change the scheme
of the suit. It is submitted that in paragraph Nos.7 and 9 of
the plaint, the respondents/plaintiffs intend to state with regard
NC: 2025:KHC:23863
HC-KAR
to the judicial proceedings, which were still within their
knowledge when the suit came to be filed and without any
explanation for the delay, the applications came to be filed and
the Trial Court without appreciating the law on the point that no
application for amendment can be allowed at the fag-end of the
proceedings, allowed the applications filed for amendment. It
is submitted that if the proposed amendment is allowed, the
Trial Court is required to frame additional issues and required
to re-conduct the trial afresh since the suit is of the year 2014.
It is submitted that the proposed amendment would also take
away the admissions made in the evidence. Hence, he seeks to
allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits
that though the applications are filed belatedly, the affidavits
accompanying the applications clearly explain the reasons as to
why the amendment is necessary to decide the case. It is
submitted that by proposed amendment, there would not be
any change in the cause of action nor will it change the nature
of suit. It is submitted that by inadvertence, some of the
NC: 2025:KHC:23863
HC-KAR
words have been crept in paragraph No.2 and portion of
paragraph No.7 of the plaint, which is intended to be corrected
for complete and correct adjudication of the dispute between
the parties. It is submitted that in so far as the amendment
sought to bring on record the judicial proceedings pending is
concerned, even without amendment also the said fact can be
taken note by the Trial Court while deciding the suit. Hence, no
prejudice would be caused to other side, if such amendment is
allowed. It is also submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs are
seeking to amend the suit schedule by reducing the extent, as
by inadvertence the property of plaintiff No.2 i.e., wife of
plaintiff No.1 is also included in the suit schedule property and
if the scope of the suit is reduced, no prejudice or harm will be
caused to the petitioners/defendants. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the petition.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for
the respondents. I have meticulously perused the material
placed on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:23863
HC-KAR
5. Respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.53/2014 seeking
relief of declaration that they are the lawful owners in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and
permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants. The
suit schedule property shown in the plaint is totally measuring,
19 acres 5 guntas including 2 acres of kharab land. The
records indicate that the petitioners/defendants filed detailed
written statement. Issues were framed and parties have
adduced the evidence. The impugned order also indicates that
the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.Nos.XI and XII under Order
VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the
plaint at the stage of arguments. If the proposed amendment
is perused, the respondents/plaintiffs are mainly seeking to
amend paragraph No.2 of the plaint by deleting some words to
indicate that they are not in possession and enjoyment of the
particular property and also seeking to insert that a public road
runs from Obalapura to Maridasanahalli and also Halla runs
from Hillock to the tank which is in the north to south direction
of the property. These amendments in the aforesaid
paragraphs do not take away the admissions or would not
change the nature of the suit as alleged by the learned counsel
NC: 2025:KHC:23863
HC-KAR
for the petitioners/defendants. These amendments are only
clarificatory amendments which also indicate that those
amendments are necessary as there is a typographical error as
averred in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit of the
respondents/plaintiffs.
6. In so far as amendment with regard to the
pendency of the proceedings and filing of an appeal is
concerned, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion
that no prejudice would be caused to the other side as those
are the judicial proceedings and the Trial Court can always take
note of the same when the suit is decided on merits. The
proposed amendment to exclude certain portion from the suit
schedule property is based on the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.114/2002. Therefore, in my considered view, the
insertion or modification of the schedule to the plaint would not
take away any of the admissions of the parties nor would it
change the nature of the suit. There is no dispute that the
applications are filed at the belated stage, however, the
applications filed for amendment would not cause any prejudice
to the other side. It is always open for the
NC: 2025:KHC:23863
HC-KAR
petitioners/defendants to file additional written statement, if so
advised. In my considered view, the Trial Court taking note of
the proposed amendment, has come to the conclusion that the
proposed amendment, no doubt is filed belatedly, but it would
neither change the nature of the suit nor the cause of action.
In my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly recorded the
aforesaid finding.
7. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed
to pass the following
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the
same is rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
PMR
