Karnataka High Court

A Mohammed Rasool @ Mujeeb Pasha vs Smt. Vageeswari S on 24 November, 2025

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                           -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:48533
                                                    WP No. 3030 of 2024


              HC-KAR



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                         BEFORE

                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 3030 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

              BETWEEN:

              A. MOHAMMED RASOOL
              @ MUJEEB PASHA
              AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
              S/O LATE AMEER JAIN
              RESIDING AT NO 1174
              35TH C CROSS, 26TH MAIN
              JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK
              BANGALORE - 560 041.

              PREVIOUSLY AT NO.345/2/62
              BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI
              BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
              (BY SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL S, ADV., FOR
                  SRI THILOK RAJ S.V, ADV.)
Digitally
signed by     AND:
NANDINI M S
Location:
HIGH COURT    SMT. VAGEESWARI S
OF            AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
KARNATAKA
              W/O B.R. SRINIVASA
              RESIDING AT FLAT NO.106
              OASIS CONDOMINIUMS
              S R LAYOUT, MURUGESHPALYA
              BANGALORE - 560 017.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
              (BY SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADV.)
                   THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
              CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
              CERTIORARI OR SUCH THERE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS OR
              DIRECTORS, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02/01/2024 PASSED BY THE
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:48533
                                            WP No. 3030 of 2024


HC-KAR



COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-38) BANGALORE CITY IN OS 5100/2008 ON IA NO. 1/2023
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ORDER (I.E. ANNEUXRE-A) AND TO
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA NO. 1/2023 IN OS NO. 5100/2008
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                           ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to set aside the

order dated 02.01.2024 passed on IA.no.1/2023 in

O.S.No.5100/2008 by the Court of XXXVII Addl. City Civil

Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.5100/2008 before the

jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, seeking the relief of

declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent

injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The

respondent herein has filed her written statement and opposed

the suit claim. IA-1/2023 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

with a prayer to amend the original written statement filed on

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

behalf of the respondent. The said application was opposed by

the petitioner by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order

impugned has allowed IA-1/2023 and being aggrieved by the

same, petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the suit was earlier decreed and as

against the said judgment and decree, respondent herein had

filed RFA.No.1585/2011 before this Court, which was allowed

and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court with certain

observations. This Court while remitting the suit, after allowing

IA-1/2019 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, has not

permitted the defendant to amend the written statement.

Perusal of the original written statement would go to show that

there are sufficient pleadings with regard to the additional

documents which were permitted to be produced by the

defendant in RFA.No.1585/2011. He submits that IA.no.4 which

was filed on behalf of the respondent seeking permission to

amend the written statement was rejected earlier and as

against the said order, respondent no.1 approached this Court

in WP.No.10459/2022 and this Court having permitted the

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

petitioner to withdraw IA.no.4 with liberty to file a fresh

application seeking amendment of the written statement, has

observed that such application is required to be considered

strictly in accordance with the observations passed by this

Court in the judgment dated 15.01.2011 passed in

RFA.No.1585/2011. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the

observations made by this Court and has traveled beyond the

judgment passed in RFA.No.185/2011 as well as in

WP.No.10459/2022 which is not permissible. He submits that

all subsequent events necessarily need not be taken on record

and it is for the Court to decide having regard to the facts and

circumstances of each case. In support of his arguments, he

has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of LAXMI & CO. VS DR. ANANT R.DESHPANDE

& ANOTHER - (1973)1 SCC 37 and also in the case of

GHASIRAM S/O JAWAHARLAL JAIN VS KUNJILAL (DEAD)

THROUGH LRS GUNPAL S/O KUNJILAL JAIN & OTHERS - 1992

MP LJ 103.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has

argued in support of the impugned order. He submits that in

the proposed amendment, petitioner is only seeking to explain

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

the documents which he had produced along with IA-1/2019 in

RFA.No.1585/2011. The proposed amendment would not in any

way change the nature of defence. He submits that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has time and again said that courts should be

liberal in considering the applications filed seeking amendment

of the pleadings in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. He

submits that in the case of B.K.NARAYANA PILLAI VS

PARAMESWARAMN PILLAI & ANOTHER - (2000)1 SCC 712, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that courts should be

more liberal while considering the application for amendment of

written statement. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

petition.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that

O.S.No.5100/2008 was earlier decreed by the Trial Court on

18.07.2011 and as against the said judgment and decree, the

respondent herein had approached this Court in

RFA.No.1585/2011. In the said appeal, IA-1/2019 was filed

under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and along with the said

application, as many as 19 documents were produced before

this Court. In paragraph 33 of the judgment in

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

RFA.No.1585/2011, the Division Bench of this Court has

observed as under:

"33. The documents now placed on record by the appellant relates to subsequent events, post judgment and decree dated 18.7.2011 impugned herein. Given the circumstances, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. It is for the substantial cause, the additional evidence is required and the same warrants a remand as discussed aforesaid to provide an opportunity to both the parties to tender evidence, if any. Accordingly, IA No.1/19 filed by the appellant for production of additional documents is allowed."

7. RFA.No.1585/2011 was allowed by this Court on

15.01.2021 and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court with

a direction to the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh after

affording an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, if

any. In compliance of the judgment passed in

RFA.No.1585/2011, the parties had appeared before the Trial

Court, and thereafter, IA-4 was filed on behalf of the defendant

under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to amend the written

statement and also to raise a counter claim. The said

application was opposed by the plaintiff and the Trial Court had

rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same,

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

respondent herein had approached this Court in

WP.No.10459/2022. The said writ petition was dismissed as

withdrawn on 25.09.2023 with liberty to the respondent to

withdraw IA-4 filed in O.S.No.5100/2008 and file a fresh

application for amendment of the written statement. It was

observed by this Court while disposing of WP.No.10459/2022

that if such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider

the same in accordance with law taking note of the

observations made by this Court in RFA.No.1585/2011 disposed

of on 15.01.2021. Thereafter, IA-1/2023 was filed on behalf of

the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a

prayer to amend the written statement.

8. It is relevant to note here that IA-4 was filed with a

prayer to amend the written statement and also to raise

counter claim. Since the trial in the suit had already

commenced, in view of the law laid down in the case of ASHOK

KUMAR KALRA VS WING CDR. SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI & ORS.

- (2020)2 SCC 394, raising a counter claim after the trial had

commenced was not permissible and it appears that, it is in this

background, in WP.No.10459/2022, the respondent was

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

permitted to withdraw IA-4 and file a fresh application seeking

amendment of the written statement. In IA-1/2023 that was

filed after disposing of W.P.No.10459/2022, a prayer is made to

incorporate paragraph nos.24 to 45 after paragraph no.23 in

the written statement.

8. A perusal of the averments found in proposed paragraph

nos.24 to 45 would go to show that the respondent/defendant

intends to explain the documents which are permitted to be

produced by this Court in RFA.No.1585/2011, and thereby

elaborate the pleadings which she had raised in her original

written statement. Except the same, no other amendment is

sought in IA-1/2023.

9. The Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the

matter and having taken note of the fact that the proposed

amendment will not change the nature of defence in the written

statement, has rightly allowed IA-1/2023. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in B.K.Narayana Pillai's case supra, has

observed that though the principle for considering the

application for amendment is equally applicable to amendment

of plaint as well as the written statement, the courts should

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

normally be liberal in permitting amendment of written

statement, as prejudice that is likely to be caused is less in

case of amendment of written statement.

10. In the case of SMT. PUTTAMMA VS N.J.SHANKAR &

OTHERS (W.P.No.2388/2024 disposed of on 10.11.2025), this

Court in paragraph nos.9 & 10, has observed as under:

"9. I.A No.10 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 20.11.2023, when the suit was at the stage of arguments, with a prayer to amend the plaint by incorporating proposed paragraph No.3(a) immediately after paragraph No.3 in the plaint. A reading of the proposed paragraph No.3(a) go to show that the plaintiff has narrated the facts about the flow of title of the suit schedule property in her favour and also has stated that suit schedule property is part and parcel of land bearing survey No.58 which was subsequently subdivided. The proposed amendment in no way changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. Proposed amendment is only to bring on record certain factual aspects which would be necessary for the purpose of proper and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

10. It is relevant to note that in R.A No.23/2017 the Appellate Court while remitting the matter to the Trial Court has directed the Trial Court to afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

evidence and both the parties have not only lead additional evidence but also have marked certain additional documents. The proposed amendment appears to be explaining the documents which are produced on behalf of the plaintiff after remand. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC does not completely bar filing of an application seeking amendment of the plaint and in the present case, it is relevant to note that suit was earlier decreed and in R.A No.23/2017, the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff was set aside and the matter was remitted with liberty to the parties to lead additional evidence and the proposed amendment is only with regard to additional facts about flow of the title in respect of the suit schedule property."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS

PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1128, has

observed that the Courts while dealing with the prayer for

amendment of pleadings should avoid a hyper technical

approach. In the said case it is also observed that amendments

should be normally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to the

judgment in Ghasiram's case supra, has placed reliance on

paragraph no.11 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

"11. It is no doubt well settled that when a higher Court remands the suit to the lower Court for a decision afresh with certain specific directions the jurisdiction of the Court to which the remand is made depends upon the terms of the remand order and that Court to which the remand is made cannot consider the matters other than those specified in the remand order. In other words, if the higher Court remands the case to the trial Court the jurisdiction of the trial Court is fortified by terms of remand order and the specific direction contained therein. But, if the higher Court in its remand order has not expressed any view on merits on the questions in controversy between the parties and once the trial Court acts within the scope and directions contained in the remand order and passes the judgment and order which is subjected to further appeal, the said order of judgment shall be open to challenge on all possible grounds and in that event the jurisdiction of the appellate Court cannot be deemed to have been circumscribed or curtailed by the remand order and the appellate Court would be within its jurisdiction to exercise its power to decide the appeal on merits, on all the points and grounds raised before it. In the present case, it has not been disputed that the trial Court had acted within the scope and limitations imposed by the remand order and, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction. The judgments and decrees of the trial Court were challenged in first appeal and there being no embargo the first appellate Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

on the questions raised before it as the High Court had not taken any decision in respect of any of the points in controversy between the parties. It therefore cannot be said that the lower appellate Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction."

13. The aforesaid paragraph states with as to how lower court

should consider the order of remand passed by the Appellate

Court with specific directions, and in the case on hand, having

allowed IA-1/2019, the Appellate Court has remanded the suit

to the Trial Court with a direction to consider the matter afresh

after providing an opportunity to both the parties to lead

evidence. The proposed amendment now made is only to

explain the documents which are permitted to be produced by

the Appellate Court, and therefore, it cannot be said that the

Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing IA-1/2023.

14. In Laxmi & Co's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph 27, has observed as under:

"27. It is true that the Court can take notice of subsequent events. These cases are where the court finds that because of altered circumstances like devolution of interest it is necessary to shorten litigation. Where the original relief has become inappropriate by subsequent events, the Court can take notice of such

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

changes. If the Court finds that the judgment of the Court cannot be carried into effect because of change of circumstances the Court takes notice of the same. If the Court finds that the matter is no longer in controversy the court also takes notice of such event. If the property which is the subject matter of suit is no longer available the court will take notice of such event. The court takes notice of subsequent events to shorten litigation, to preserve rights of both the parties and to subserve the ends of justice. Judged by these principles it is manifest that in the present case suits are pending. On the one hand the appellant has challenged the decree obtained by Ashar and others as also the warrant of execution. On the other hand, the suit instituted by Ashar and others against inter alia the appellant in 1965 for possession is pending. This Court cannot say with exactitude that any final decision has been reached on the respective and rival rights and claims of the appellant and the respondent. It is, therefore, neither desirable nor practicable to take notice of any fact on the rival versions of the parties as to subsequent events."

15. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment cannot

be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

present case, and therefore, I am of the opinion that the said

judgment will not be of any aid to the petitioner in the present

case.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48533

HC-KAR

16. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the

Trial Court was fully justified in allowing IA-1/2023.

17. In the light of the above, I do not find any good ground

to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is