[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Jagannatha vs Smt. Vijaya K Shetty on 2 February, 2026

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                                 -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:5634
                                                        WP No. 36558 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                            BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 36558 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. JAGANNATHA
                   S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
                   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                   R/AT 6TH CROSS,
                   NANDHINI LAYOUT,
                   ALKOLA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205
                                                                ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR N D., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.     SMT. VIJAYA K SHETTY
                          AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                          D/O LATE T JAGANNATHA RAI,

Digitally signed
                   2.     SANDYA K SHETTY
by                        AGED ABOUT 44 MAJOR,
SHARADAVANI
B                         D/O B K SHETTY,
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka          3.     SMT. HARSHITHA K SHETTY
                          D/O B K SHETTY,
                          AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

                          SMT JAVARAMMA DEAD BY LRS SANJAYA
                          S/O LATE RANGASWAMY,

                   4.     SANJANA
                          S/O LATE RANGASWAMY
                          AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                          R/O ANUPINKATTE VILLAGE,
                          SHIVAMOGGA TALUK. - 577 205
                           -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:5634
                                    WP No. 36558 of 2025


HC-KAR




5.   SUJAYA
     S/O LATE RANGASWAMY,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     R/O ANUPINKATTE VILLAGE,
     SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
     SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205

6.   SMT P SAROJA @ SAROJAMMA
     W/O LOKAPRAKASH,
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     R/O RANGANATHA EXTENSION,
     GOPALA SHIVAMOGGA. - 577 201

7.   SMT. SEETHAMMA
     W/O LATE KENCHAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     R/O 5TH CROSS,
     GOPALAGOWDA EXTENSION,
     SHIVAMOGGA. - 577 201

8.   SRI.SOMANNA
     S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
     R/AT 6TH CROSS,
     NANDININ LAYOUT, ALKOLA,
     SHIVAMOGGA-577 205.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYA KUMAR N. D., ADVOCATE)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
18.11.2025 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA AT ANNEXURE-A.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:5634
                                           WP No. 36558 of 2025


HC-KAR




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR


                          ORAL ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.75 of 2014 on

the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at

Shivamogga is directed against the impugned order dated

18.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.26, whereby the said

application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6

Rule 17 of CPC seeking incorporation of the additional

pleadings and prayers was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate

that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit

against the respondents/defendants for declaration and

injunction in relation to the suit schedule immovable

properties. The said suit having been contested by the

respondents/defendants, after completion of oral and

documentary evidence adduced by both sides and at the

stage of final arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the

instant application seeking to incorporate certain

subsequent events and by way of amendment to the

NC: 2026:KHC:5634

HC-KAR

prayer and pleadings in the plaint. The said application

was opposed by the respondents/defendants interalia

contending that the proposed amendment was barred by

limitation and that the petitioner/plaintiff had not

exercised due diligence in not seeking amendment within

the meaning of the proviso contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of

CPC and the various admissions given by the petitioner/

plaintiff in the evidence would be nullified if the proposed

amendment was allowed. By the impugned order, the

Trial court proceeded to reject I.A.No.26, aggrieved by

which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the

present petition.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate

that the Trial Court has rejected the application, on two

grounds, viz., that the petitioner had not exercised due

diligence in not seeking proposed amendment prior to

commencement of trial and that the proposed amendment

was barred by limitation. In this context, it is relevant to

state that if the proposed amendment which seeks to

NC: 2026:KHC:5634

HC-KAR

incorporate subsequent events that had allegedly

transpired during the pendency of the suit is perused, in

the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of

(i) L.C.Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B.Shivakumar AIR 2015

SC 3364 and (ii) Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayya Kannu &

Others AIR 2002 SC 3369, I am of the view that the

proposed amendment deserves to be allowed by directing

that the amendment shall not relate back to the date of

the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of

the amendment application which was filed on 23.10.2025

by leaving open the question regarding limitation, to be

decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law. Under

these circumstances, having regard to the principles

governing amendment of pleadings as enunciated by the

Apex Court in various judgments including the judgment in

the case of (i) LIC Vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022)

16 SCC 1 (ii) Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman

Agarwal (Bindal) & others 2024 INSC 726, the

NC: 2026:KHC:5634

HC-KAR

impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be

set aside.

4. In so far as the finding recorded by the Trial

Court that the petitioner had not exercised due diligence in

not seeking amendment prior to commencement of trial,

in the light of the principles laid down in Shri

Mohammadrafi and Another Vs. Bandenawaz and

Others - W.P.No.108512 of 2025 dated 16.12.2025,

even this finding recorded by the Trial Court deserves to

be set aside. At any rate, it cannot be said that any

prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants

who would be entitled to file additional written statement

to the amended plaint and take up all defences, including

the defence of limitation, which can be considered by the

Trial Court, in accordance with law.

5. Under these circumstances, I am of the

considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the

Trial Court rejecting amendment as occasioned failure of

NC: 2026:KHC:5634

HC-KAR

justice warranting interference by this Court in the present

petition. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed on

I.A.No.26 in O.S.No.75 of 2014 by the III

Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga

is hereby set aside.

iii) The application/I.A.No.26 for amendment stands

allowed, subject to the condition that the

proposed amendment shall not relate back to the

date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered

from the date of the amendment application,

which was filed on 23.10.2025 and the question

of limitation is left open to be decided by the Trial

Court, in accordance with law.

iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to

file additional written statement to the amended

NC: 2026:KHC:5634

HC-KAR

plaint and take up all defences including the

defence of limitation.

v) The petitioner/plaintiff is directed to carry out

amendment and file amended plaint in the suit on

a date to be fixed by the Trial Court, along with

fresh valuation slip.

vi) Upon the petitioner/plaintiff carrying on

amendment and filing amended plaint, the

respondents/defendants shall file additional

written statement within a period of two weeks

from that date.

vii) Immediately upon the respondents/defendants

filing additional written statement, the Trial Court

shall frame additional issues and proceed further

in the matter.

viii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both sides to

adduce additional oral and documentary

evidence, in support of their respective claims to

NC: 2026:KHC:5634

HC-KAR

the limited/restricted extent of the amended

pleadings and not with regard to any other aspect

of the matter.