Karnataka High Court
R. M. Pilla Reddy vs C. H. Lakshmankumar Alias C. H. Lohith on 19 February, 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:10331
WP No. 31618 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 31618 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. R.M.PILLA REDDY
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
WHO ARE OTHER PETITIONERS
AND RESPONDENT NO.3
AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT.13.06.2025)
2. SMT. GOWRAMMA
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
WHO ARE OTHER PETITIONERS
AND RESPONDENT NO.3
AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT.13.06.2025)
3. P.SATISH
S/O. R.M.PILLA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.
4. P.HARISH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O. R.M.PILLA REDDY,
RESIDING AT CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANIVANNAN.G., ADVOCATE)
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10331
WP No. 31618 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. C.H.LAKSHMANKUMAR
ALIAS C.H.LOHITH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
S/O. P.HARISH,
RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.
2. B.K.CHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KULLA REDDY,
RESIDING AT BALLUR VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK-562 106.
3. SUNANDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
D/O. PILLA REDDY,
RESIDING AT MUTHHANALLURU.P & VILLAGE,
BOMMASANDRA VIA SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 099.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DTD:08.07.2021, NOTICE TO R2 D/W;
R3-SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN O.S.NO.658 OF 2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ANEKAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.658 OF 2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10331
WP No. 31618 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 07.09.2018 on I.A.No.14 in O.S.No.658/2006 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Anekal (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, an application filed by the Respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been allowed.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that he restricts his challenge only to the order of the learned Trial Court allowing amendment to the plaint by adding paragraph No.8(a) in the application.
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that the amendment which causes prejudice or injustice to the other side could not have been allowed.
In addition, he contends that the amendment sought for in -3- NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR paragraph 8(a) is the additional prayer of declaration and that this prayer is barred by limitation. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeks to rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.1 more particularly to paragraph No.71.2 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court Basavaraj v. Indira2 to submit that the amendments can be allowed at any stage if they are necessary for determining the controversy in issue unless they are causing prejudice or injustice to the other side. Thus, it is contended that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity.
4. A perusal of the Impugned Order reflects that after examining the fact that the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeks to add a prayer in the plaint to state that the Gift 1 (2022) 16 SCC 1 2 (2024) 3 SCC 705 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR Deed dated 19.09.2003 is not binding on them, the respondent No.1/plaintiff is not ready to commence the trial and that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is dragging the matter on one pretext or the other.
5. As stated above, the Impugned Order has allowed the application for amendment subject to costs in a sum of Rs.3,000/-. The challenge raised by the petitioners / defendant Nos.1 and 2 is primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the amendment will cause injustice or prejudice to the petitioners / defendant Nos.1 and 2 since the application is being filed belatedly. Secondly, that the amendment would be barred by limitation since the suit was filed in the year 2003 and the limitation to seek a prayer of declaration expires in the year 2006.
5.1. The application IA No.14 which was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff sought eight amendments and of these, as stated above, for amendments Nos.1 to 7, the petitioners/defendant No.1 and 2 do not have any objection. However, so far para No.8(a), which seeks to the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR amendment for adding a separate prayer in the plaint, the said amendment is being challenged by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 before this Court. Para No.8(a) of the application is set out below.
"8(a) The plaintiff submit that, after filing of the above suit the defendant no.1 colluded with the defendant no.3 illegally and unlawfully has executed a alleged gift deed in favour of the defendant no.3 vide document no.BNG(U) ANKL.S.R/D. No.7639/03-04 dated 19.09.2003 which was registered before the sub registrar at anekal in repect of the old sy. o. 69 new sy. no.69/1 measuring 5 acres 28 guntas including 2 guntas karab and old sy. no.70, new sy. no.70/p1 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas both are situated at Chandapura village. The plaintiff submits that, the defendants are all colluded each other and created the above said alleged gift deed to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submit that, above gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff.
In page no.4, in prayer Column to be added.
A(1) To declare the gift deed executed by the defendant no.1 favour of the defendant no.3 vide document no.BNG(U) ANKL.S.R/D.NO. 7639/03- 04 dated:19.09.2003 which was registered before the sub registrar at anekal, as not binding on the plaintiff."
[Emphasis Supplied] 5.2. The affidavit annexed to the application further sets out the reason for such amendment, as follows:
"I submit that, while filing of the plaint, I am no knowledge about the correct boundaries but now some elders of the village assisted to correct -6- NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR boundaries and now present boundaries mentioned in the plaint are wrong and same is substituted as mentioned in the annexed application. I submit that the suit item no.8 number already mentioned in the plaint schedule item No.5, but the said kaneshumari no.32, as mentioned jointly kaneshumari no.80/71 and 32 but I am recently know that the said property is not to gather with the kaneshumari no.80/71,the said property including separate boundaries and separate measurements. Hence, the suit item no.8 is also very much necessary to incorporate in the suit schedule as item no.8."
[Emphasis Supplied] 5.3. In addition, the affidavit sets out that after the filing of the above of the suit, the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 has illegally executed a Gift Deed dated 19.09.2003 in favour of the defendant No.3/petitioner No. 3 in respect of 1 item of the suit schedule property. It is further stated that while preparing the examination in chief, the advocate found that no challenge has been made to the Gift Deed.
Hence the application has been filed. The relevant extract is set out below.
"I submit that, after filing of the above suit, the defendant No.1 illegally and unlawfully has executed a gift deed dated 19.9.2003 in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of item No.1 suit schedule property who is none other than his son without the consent and knowledge me. I submit that, hence the said gift deed is not binding on me. I submit that, while preparing my examination in chief affidavit, my -7- NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR advocate found the said mistake. The said mistake is not at all intentional or deliberate but for the bonafide reason as stated above. The proposed amendment is very much necessary for the proper adjudication of the above case. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit or alter the cause of action. Hence, the annexed application."
[Emphasis Supplied]
6. It is no longer res integra that the Courts are liberal while allowing amendments to the pleadings especially when the main purpose of allowing amendments is to minimize the litigation. Undisputedly, this amendment is a pre-trial amendment and the evidence in the matter is yet to commence. The Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India case, has while discussing the gamut of law on amendment of pleadings has held as follows:
""22. It would be useful to also notice the observations of this Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 65 : 1957 SCR 595 : AIR 1957 SC 363] , wherein this Court considered an objection to the amendment on the ground that the same amounted to a new case and a new cause of action. In this case, this Court laid down the principles which would govern the exercise of discretion as to whether the court ought to permit an amendment of the pleadings or not. This Court approved the observations of Batchelor, J., in Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant, 1909 SCC -8- NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR OnLine Bom 84 : ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644] , when he laid down the principles thus : (Pirgonda Hongonda Patil case [Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 65 : 1957 SCR 595 : AIR 1957 SC 363] ) "10. ... All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. ... but I refrain from citing further authorities, as, in my opinion, they all lay down precisely the same doctrine. That doctrine, as I understand it, is that amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. It is merely a particular case of this general rule that where a plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, the amendment must be refused; to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a good defence to the claim. The ultimate test therefore still remains the same : can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side, or can it not?' "
23. This Court has repeatedly held that the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may be appropriately exercised at any stage in the interests of justice, notwithstanding the law of limitation. In this behalf, in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, (1974) 2 SCC 393] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 399, para 22)
22. ... The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, -9- NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court."
XXX XXX XXX
25. The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. The proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement. (See South Konkan Distilleries v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik [South Konkan Distilleries v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik, (2008) 14 SCC 632] .) XXX XXX XXX
29. In Pankaja v. Yellappa [Pankaja v. Yellappa, (2004) 6 SCC 415] , this Court held that it was in the discretion of the court to allow an application under Order 6 Rule 17CPC seeking amendment of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR the plaint even where the relief sought to be added by amendment was allegedly barred by limitation. The Court noticed that there was no absolute rule that the amendment in such a case should not be allowed. It was pointed out that the court's discretion in this regard depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and has to be exercised on a judicial evaluation thereof.
[Emphasis Supplied] 7.1. In addition, while summing up the principles qua amendment, it has been held as follows:
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.
71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
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,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR
(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.
71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.
71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 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 hyper technical 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.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR 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.
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]
8. The petitioner / defendant in his objections in has contended that the amendment sought for is barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Schedule to the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR Limitation Act, since the limitation prescribed under the o challenge the validity of the gift deed is 3 years from the date of transaction or from the date of knowledge thereof.
9. In the case of Pankaja v. Yellappa,3 the Supreme Court examined a similar contention of delay in the filing of amendment application as well as the application being barred by Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act has found that the dominant purpose of allowing an amendment is to minimize litigation. Therefore, if the facts of the case so permit, it is always open to the Court to allow such applications in spite of delay and latches in moving such amendment application. In addition, it has been held that the law on limitation is clear and consistent. There is no absolute rule that in every case where relief is barred because of limitation, an amendment should not be allowed.
Discretion has to be exercised depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. If the granting of such 3 (2004) 6 SCC 415
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR amendment subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, the same should be allowed.
"12. So far as the court's jurisdiction to allow an amendment of pleadings is concerned, there can be no two opinions that the same is wide enough to permit amendments even in cases where there has been substantial delay in filing such amendment applications. This Court in numerous cases has held that the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation, therefore, if the facts of the case so permit, it is always open to the court to allow applications in spite of the delay and laches in moving such amendment application.
13. But the question for our consideration is whether in cases where the delay has extinguished the right of the party by virtue of expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in law, can the court in the exercise of its discretion take away the right accrued to another party by allowing such belated amendments.
14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straitjacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case.
15. This Court in the case of L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357] has held: (AIR p. 362, para 16)
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR "16. It is no doubt true that courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the court to order it, if that is required in the interests of justice."
16. This view of this Court has, since, been followed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board [(2004) 3 SCC 392]. Therefore, an application for amendment of the pleading should not be disallowed merely because it is opposed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation, on the contrary, application will have to be considered bearing in mind the discretion that is vested with the court in allowing or disallowing such amendment in the interest of justice.
17. Factually in this case, in regard to the stand of the defendants that the declaration sought by the appellants is barred by limitation, there is dispute and it is not an admitted fact. While the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents pleaded that under Entry 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the declaration sought for by the appellants in this case ought to have been done within 3 years when the right to sue first accrued, the appellant-plaintiff contends that the same does not fall under the said entry but falls under Entry 64 or 65 of the said Schedule of the Limitation Act which provides for a limitation of 12 years, therefore, according to them the prayer for declaration of title is not barred by limitation, therefore, both the courts below have seriously erred in not considering this question before rejecting the prayer for amendment. In such a situation where there is a dispute as to the bar of limitation this Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan [(2001) 2 SCC 472] has held: (SCC p. 472) "The amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR is arguable in the circumstances of the case. The plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for."
18. We think that the course adopted by this Court in Ragu Thilak D. John case [(2001) 2 SCC 472] applies appropriately to the facts of this case. The courts below have proceeded on an assumption that the amendment sought for by the appellants is ipso facto barred by the law of limitation and amounts to introduction of different relief than what the plaintiff had asked for in the original plaint. We do not agree with the courts below that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff introduces a different relief so as to bar the grant of prayer for amendment, necessary factual basis has already been laid down in the plaint in regard to the title which, of course, was denied by the respondent in his written statement which will be an issue to be decided in a trial. Therefore, in the facts of this case, it will be incorrect to come to the conclusion that by the amendment the plaintiff will be introducing a different relief.
19. We have already noted, hereinabove, that there is an arguable question whether the limitation applicable for seeking the relief of declaration on facts of this case falls under Entry 58 of the Limitation Act or under Entry 64 or Entry 65 of the Limitation Act which question has to be decided in the trial, therefore, in our view, following the judgment of this Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John [(2001) 2 SCC 472] we set aside the impugned orders of the courts below, allow the amendment prayed for, direct the trial court to frame necessary issue in this regard and decide the said issue in accordance with law bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in the case of L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. [AIR 1957 SC 357]"
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. In the present case, the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 has relied on the judgment in Basavaraj case.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR However, this judgment is clearly inapplicable to the facts of the case, since this judgment was in respect of a case where an amendment application was filed at the end of the case and the Supreme Court relied on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to hold that the amendment could not be allowed after the trial had commenced in terms of the proviso.
11. The amendment that is sought for by the respondent No.1/plaintiff is to include the prayer of declaration in view of the fact that the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 (petitioner Nos.1 and 3) have colluded in executing a Gift Deed in respect of the part of suit Schedule I property.
12. Since the execution of Gift Deed is not disputed by the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent No.1/plaintiff is claiming rights to the property which is stated to have been gifted away, this amendment to challenge the legality of the Gift Deed, would be necessary
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR to determine the controversy in issue and would prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
13. In view of the aforegoing discussions and given the settled law in this behalf, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however clarified that the petitioners/ defendant Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to raise all contentions that have been raised before this Court, before the Trial Court. The rights of both parties are kept open in this regard. All pending applications stand closed.Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT
Sd/-OF KARNTAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN / JJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
- 19 -