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
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
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
NC: 2025:KHC:39922
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
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
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
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
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
