M/S Teknopoint Trading Company Pvt Ltd vs Smt P Anitha
2026 Latest Caselaw 2280 Kant

Karnataka High Court

M/S Teknopoint Trading Company Pvt Ltd vs Smt P Anitha on 13 March, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:15030
                                                        W.P. No.13276/2019


                  HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                           DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                          BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                           WRIT PETITION NO.13276/2019 (GM-CPC)


                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    M/S. TEKNOPOINT TRADING
                       COMPANY PVT LTD
                       A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
                       THE COMPANIES ACT
                       OFFICE AT NO.58
Digitally signed       MAHARASTRA BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR
by ARSHIFA             BORA MASJID ROAD, FORT
BAHAR KHANAM           MUMBAI-400001
Location: HIGH         REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA        2.    M/S. MICROGATE TRADING
                       COMPANY PVT LTD
                       A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
                       THE COMPANIES ACT
                       OFFICE AT NO.103, SAGARIKA APARTMENTS
                       OPP. PALM GROOVE HOTEL JUHU
                       ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI-400049
                       REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

                                                             ...PETITIONERS
                 (BY MR. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                     MR. MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADV.,)

                 AND:

                 1.    SMT. P. ANITHA
                       W/O SRI. K.S. JAGADISH REDDY
                       D/O LATE A.C. PRAKASH REDDY
                       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                       R/A NO.45, KASAVANAHALLI
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:15030
                                      W.P. No.13276/2019


HC-KAR




     BELLANDUR POST
     BANGALORE-560037.

2.   SRI. K. SATHISH KUMAR
     S/O LATE K. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     R/A NO.13/2, SOUTH PARK ROAD
     BANGALORE-560020.

3.   M/S. S.S.S. PROJECTS LIMITED
     A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
     COMPANIES ACT, 1 OF 1959
     HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
     NO. SOUTH PARK ROAD
     NEHRU NAGAR
     BANGALORE-560020
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
     SRI. K. SATHISH KUMAR.

4.   M/S. WONDER PROJECTS
     DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD
     A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
     THE COMPANIES ACT
     OFFICE AT NO.80, 2ND CROSS
     HULKUL ASCENT, LAVELLE ROAD
     BANGALORE-560001
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. AKASH V.T. ADV., FOR R1 [ABSENT]
    MR. PRADEEP NAYAK
    MR. SANKEERTH VITTAL
    MS. NANDINI S. PATIL AND
    MS. SURABHI K.C. ADVS.,
        FOR M/S. KEYSTONE PARTNERS FOR R4)

     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 3.4.2018 IN I.A.NO.III
PASSED IN O.S.NO.459/2016 BY THE HON'BLE XX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH 32) AT ANNEXURE-B &
ETC.
                              -3-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:15030
                                          W.P. No.13276/2019


HC-KAR




     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
11.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                      CAV JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

03.04.2018 passed on I.A.No.III filed by the respondent

No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in O.S.No.459/2016 on

the file of the XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru (for short 'the Trial Court')

2. Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior counsel for

Sri.Maneesha Kongovi, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has proceeded

to pass the impugned order without considering the

material on record in its proper perspective. It is

submitted that the Trial Court has proceeded to allow the

application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC by the

respondent No.1, in a casual and routine manner without

assigning any cogent reasons for allowing the same. It is

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

further submitted that the said amendment sought is to

include a prayer for declaration that the sale deeds dated

24.01.2007 and 23.06.2016 are null and void, however,

the said prayer is beyond the period of limitation for the

relief of declaration, which is impermissible. It is also

submitted that the effect of the amendment is a prayer for

declaration of the sale deeds, wherein the petitioners are

the interested parties and as on the date of passing of the

order for amendment of plaint, the petitioners were not

arrayed as parties and only later in point they were

impleaded, which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to

allow the petition.

3. Sri.Akash.V.T, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent No.1 has filed vakalath for the respondent

No.1, however, he has not entered appearance today or

even on the previous hearings.

4. Sri.Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.4 supports the contentions advanced by

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and seeks to

allow the petition.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned

Senior counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for

the respondent No.4 and perused the material available on

record. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions advanced on both the sides.

6. The material on record indicates that the

respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.459/2016

seeking the relief of declaration, possession, permanent

injunction and other reliefs. In the said suit, the

respondent No.1-plaintiff filed an application under Order

VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint

and to add a prayer for declaration that the sale deeds

dated 24.01.2007 and 23.03.2016 are null and void. The

Trial Court proceeded to allow the application.

7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners

rightly submits that the Trial Court has proceeded to allow

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

the application in a routine and casual manner without

giving any cogent reasons. The order of the Trial Court

dated 03.04.2018 is extracted as under:

"Heard on I.A.No.III. Perused the I.A. III and also the proposed amendment and also relief sought in the suit. I.A III is allowed."

A perusal of the aforesaid order makes it clear that

there are absolutely no reasons assigned by the Trial

Court while allowing the application for amendment of the

plaint.

8. The other contention of the learned Senior

counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent No.1-

plaintiff by way of the amendment seeks to make an

addition to the prayer by seeking declaration of the sale

deeds dated 24.01.2007 and 23.03.2016 as null and void.

The said relief specifically relating to 24.01.2007 is barred

by limitation. To appreciate the said contention, it would

be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

OF INDIA Vs. SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED

AND ANOTHER1. The relevant paragraphs are extracted

as under:

"71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:

71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.

2022 SCC Online SC 2018

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.

71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.

71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897].)"

(emphasis supplied)

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

9. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the

application for amendment of the plaint seeking to

introduce a time-barred claim which could result in the

divesting of the opposite party's accrued rights, cannot be

allowed. In the instant case, the sale deed dated

24.01.2007 is more than 10 years prior to the filing of the

application, whereas the limitation period as per the

Limitation Act, 1963, to seek a relief of declaration is 3

years. Hence, I am of the considered view that the prayer

sought to be added by the amendment is barred by

limitation and is impermissible.

10. Furthermore, a perusal of the affidavit

accompanying the application indicates that the

respondent No.1-plaintiff found out about the sale deeds

only after the filing of the suit. However, such an

assertion cannot be accepted purely because the sale

deeds in question are registered documents. To

appreciate the same, it would be useful to place reliance

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of DILBOO Vs. DHANRAJ AND OTHERS2, wherein it was

held as under:

"20. ....Whenever a document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend the period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge."

11. It would also be useful to refer to the decision

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURAJ LAMP

AND INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (2) Vs. STATE OF

HARYANA3, wherein it was held as under:

15. In the earlier order dated 15-5-2009 [(2009) 7 SCC 363 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 126] , the objects and benefits of registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference: (SCC p. 367, paras 15-18) "15...

16....

17..........Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed.

(2000) 7 SCC 702

(2012) 1 SCC 656

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified."

12. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the

registration of a document serves as a deemed and

constructive notice, which can be ascertained by

undertaking due diligence. In the instant case, the

assertion of the respondent No.1-plaintff in the affidavit

that he was unaware of the sale deeds cannot be accepted

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

purely because the said sale deeds in question are

registered documents, which could have been ascertained

by due diligence.

13. It is also noticed that the unamended plaint

mentions that the respondent No.1-plaintiff executed a

registered agreement of sale dated 24.09.2003, which was

subsequently cancelled and further also executed a sale

deed dated 26.12.2006 in return for a sale consideration,

which is lower than the Government value of the property.

It is further stated that the defendant No.2 in the suit,

with an intention to cheat, did not pay the sale

consideration. However, in the application for amendment

of plaint, a totally diagonal stand is taken that the plaint

schedule property was given as security for receiving a

loan amount and that the respondent No.1-plaintiff had

used the property as a mortgage. Such a contention by

way of an amendment intends to change the nature of the

transaction from a sale to a mortgage, which inadvertently

changes the nature of the suit. It is clearly held in the

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15030

HC-KAR

case of LIFE INDIA CORPORATION referred supra that

an amendment that changes the nature of the suit cannot

be allowed. Hence, even on this ground the impugned

order is required to be interfered with.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed

(ii) The order dated 03.04.2018 passed on I.A.No.III

in O.S.No.459/2018 by the XX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

Consequently, the I.A.No.III is rejected.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1