Karnataka High Court
Shri Manjegowda S vs Smt Lalitha Raj on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2925
WP No. 15410 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 15410 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI MANJEGOWDA S
S/O SHIVANANJAPPA K B
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.187/7 SHIVANAGA NILAYA
2ND CROSS CHBCS LAYOUT
GOVINDARAJNAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHANKAR REDDY,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT LALITHA RAJ @ LALITHA H V
D/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y W/O CHELUVARAJ A S
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
NO.176, 5TH CROSS 3RD MAIN
VYALIKAVAL LAYOUT, NEAR G K W LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040
2. SMT SHIVANANJAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y W/O APPAJI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.141 8TH CROSS 4TH MAIN
GOVINDRAJ NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040
3. SRI SRINIVAS V
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.141 8TH CROSS 4TH MAIN
GOVINDRAJ NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2925
WP No. 15410 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. SMT SUDHA
D/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y
W/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.141 8TH CROSS 4TH MAIN
GOVINDRAJ NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040
5. SMT KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
NO.141 8TH CROSS 4TH MAIN
GOVINDRAJ NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040
6. SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE NAGALAKSHMI AND DASAPPA
R/AT NO.1771 2ND FLOOR
5TH CROSS 3RD MAIN
VYALIKAVAL LAYOUT
G K W LAYOUT VIJAYANGAR
BENGALURU 560 040
7. SRI DILIP KUMAR
S/O LATE NAGALAKSHMI AND DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.1771 2ND FLOOR
5TH CROSS 3RD MAIN
VYALIKAVAL LAYOUT
G K W LAYOUT, VIJAYANGAR
BENGALURU 560 040
8. SRI DURGESH P
S/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NO.141 8TH CROSS 4TH MAIN
GOVINDRAJ NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040
9. SMT SRIDEVI
D/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y
W/O KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NO.30 6TH CROSS,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2925
WP No. 15410 of 2021
HC-KAR
Da.Ra.BENDRA ROAD,
AMARJYOTHINGAR,
BENGALURU 560 040
10. SMT RENUKADEVI
D/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y
W/O RAGHUVEER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NO.141 8TH CROSS 4TH MAIN
GOVINDRAJ NAGAR
BENGALURU 560 040
11. SMT VEDAVATHI
D/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y
W/O VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
NO.141 8TH CROSS 4TH MAIN
GOVINDRAJ NAGAR
BENGALURU 560 040
12. SMT SUMA
D/O LATE VENKATAIAH Y W/O ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.176 1ST FLOOR 3RD MAIN
5TH CROSS G K W LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040
...RESPONDENTS
(BY R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED; V/O DTD:24.08.2021, NOTICE TO
R5 TO R12 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
------
THIS W.P. UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-
H, THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.534/2018 DTD.
19.03.2021 BY THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:2925
WP No. 15410 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 19.03.2021 passed on IA No.2 in O.S.No.534/2018 by the learned V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, captioned as Annexure-H (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC by the petitioner/defendant No.9, has been dismissed with costs on the petitioner/defendant No.9.
2. None appears for the respondents No.1 to 4 despite service. The service to respondent No.5 to 12 has already been dispensed with by order dated 24.08.2021.
3. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 05.01.2026 after briefly hearing the counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.9, the Court has passed the following order :
"3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requests for some time to make his submissions on how the amendments sought by him in his application are relevant for the purposes of determining the actual controversy in the suit filed before the learned Trial Court by the respondent/plaintiff.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR
4. Brief note of contentions not exceeding three pages along with judgements, if any, in support be filed within a week."
4. Given the pendency of the matter for the last five years, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today.
5. The brief facts are that the suit for partition, injunction, and declaration was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The prayers in the plaint were for partition of 1/11th share each, as well as declaration that registered gift deed and registered sale deed are not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs. An injunction was also sought in respect of the suit schedule property as set out in the plaint. The petitioner/defendant No.9 claims to be a subsequent purchaser of the entire suit schedule property. The petitioner/defendant No.9 appeared and contested the case before the learned Trial Court and filed a Written Statement.
6. The petitioner/defendant No.9 filed an application-IA No.2 seeking amendment of his Written Statement. By the said application, the petitioner/defendant No.9 has sought for insertion of paragraphs 4(bb) in the Written Statement. The -6- NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR reasons for the amendment, as set out by the petitioner/defendant No.9 in his application, is to bring on record the fact that late Venkataiah had not suffered brain stroke in the year 2009 but was in a sound state of mind. The petitioner/defendant No.9 states that he has searched "Facebook" and was able to get photographs of late Venkataiah. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the amendment application below:
"Paragraph 4(bb) - The defendant No.9 submits that Late Venkataiah was hale and healthy person, in sound disposing state of mind in the year 2012 to his knowledge. The said Venkataiah was very enthusiastic person used to mingle with all his family members. The defendant Nos.9 and 10 being the close family friends used to get invitations even for a small function celebrated in the house of plaintiffs. Accordingly, they were invited to 80th birthday of Late Venkataiah. The above defendant No.9 was shocked after reading the averments made by the plaintiffs in para No.4 that Venkataiah had suffered brain stroke in the year 2006 and was not keeping sound and disposing state of mind as he was in close friendship with him till his end and he had attended 80th birthday of him celebrated by all his children. This defendant No.9 has searched the Facebook and was able to get the photos of 80th birthday of Late Venkataiah. The defendant No.9 submits that Late Venkataiah was in perfect sound disposing state of mind till his death much less in the year 2012. Further, defendant No.9 being close family friend, had even seen the bank records while discharging the loan taken by defendant No.8 - Smt. Suma by mortgaging the gift deed, executed by her father in her favour."
[Emphasis supplied] -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR 6.1. The reasons as set out in the affidavit dated 27.11.2018 filed by the petitioner/defendant No.9 for this amendment are that recent access to the face book account of some of the parties are also relevant and are extracted below.
"3. I submit that the facts mentioned in paragraph 4(bb) of the annexed application were in my knowledge but confirmed by the photos seen by him in the Facebook account of some of the plaintiffs and defendants and while recollecting the events taken place at the time of discharge of loan by the Sir.M.Visveshwaraiah Co-operative Bank Ltd., obtained by the defendant No.8. I remember about issuance of pay orders in favour of some of family members of plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 8.
4. I submit that when the information with regard to the contents of para 4(bb) was given to my counsel, it was advised to me, with regard to the necessity of filing an amendment application to the written statement filed by me and defendant No. 10. Accordingly, I have filed the annexed application immediately.
5. I submit that the averments made in para 4(bb) of the annexed application would not change the nature of my written statement. Further, I have filed the application soon after the advice given by counsel. Further, the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 in collusion with each other are intending to defraud me having received valuable consideration from me at the time of execution of the sale deed in my favour by defendant No.8."
[Emphasis supplied]
7. The Trial Court however, after examining has given a finding that the amendment is not necessary for resolving the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR real question on the controversy between the parties and that para 4(bb) is only a repetition. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is set out below:
"8. It is worth to note that, though the learned counsel for defendant No.9 and 10 urged in para 6 of the written arguments that the amendment application has been sought before commencement of trial and it would not change the nature of the defense, but if we go through the contents of proposed para 4(bb) with that of para 4(a), 4(b) and para 8 of the written statement filed by defendant No.9 and 10 we can find that the contents of proposed amendment para 4 (bb) has already been covered, as such seeking permission to add the contents of para 4(bb) is nothing but repetition of facts already taken by the defendants in para 4(a), 4(b) and 8 of their written statement.Therefore having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, proposed amendment is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. For these reasons written arguments filed on behalf of the learned counsel for defendant No.9 and 10 do not have weight and cannot be accepted. On the other hand arguments advanced by the learned counsel for plaintiffs holds good. Consequently present application is liable to be dismissed on payment of cost. Hence, I answer point raised for consideration is in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER I.A.No.2 filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC by the counsel for applicant/defendant No.9 and 10 is hereby dismissed on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. For payment of cost and plaintiffs evidence call on 15/06/2021."
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. This Court is unable to agree. Concededly, the suit has been filed for partition and declaration that the documents -9- NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.9 are not binding on the respondents/plaintiffs.
9. It is settled law that, ordinarily in a pre-trial stage the Courts will have to be liberal while granting leave to amend pleadings. As long as the amendment does not cause injustice and are necessary for the controversy in issue, they should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It was further held that where the amendment is not time barred or does not withdraw an admission, these generally should be allowed. The Courts should not have an hyper-technical approach and specially where introduction of material particulars is sought.
The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others1, while discussing amendments to pleadings held as follows:
11. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case, let us consider the law relating to the amendments of pleadings.
11.1. The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v.1
2024 SCC Online 2615
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR Bhagwan Das2. it was held as under:
[ "16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these a real so well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR1957SC363] which still holds the field, it was held that 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. 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 himan injury which could not be compensate din costs. [Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar (1990) 1 SCC 166.]"
11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,3 after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:-
(i) 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 2 (2008) 8 SCC 511 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side.
(iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if-
(a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side.
(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations)
(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit;
(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,
(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence.
(iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are-
(I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach;
ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to setup an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint."
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. The application for amendment was filed within three months of filing of the Written Statement and the trial in the matter has also not commenced before the learned Trial Court.
11. This Court has also examined the Memorandum of Plaint filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. The plaint sets out that plaintiff and defendant constituted Hindu undivided family and that they are the children of late Venkataiah and the first defendant. The defendant Nos.4 to 8 are children of Venkataiah while defendant Nos.2 and 3 are grand children. It further sets out that item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by Venkataiah in the name of the first defendant by a registered sale deed dated 10.04.1969 and that during the life time Venkataiah, he was in possession of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. However, he suffered a brain stroke during the year 2006 and was not keeping sound disposing mind and died intestate in 2017. The plaintiffs further sets out that suit property is in joint possession of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8 and that no partition has been affected. Thus, the suit has been filed.
12. The Petitioner/defendant No.9 on the other hand has filed a Written Statement averring that the suit schedule property was self acquired property of late Vankataiah who had gifted half portion of the property in favour of defendant No.8 which is to the knowledge of all other defendants. In addition, the issue of late Venkataiah suffering a brain stroke has been denied and it has been stated by the petitioner/defendant No.9 that said Venkataiah was in sound disposing mind. Clearly thus, there is a challenge by the petitioner/defendant No.9 on the said late Venkataiah's health during the period 2006-2017.
13. In addition, the amendments sought for do not withdraw any admissions nor change the nature of the suit. It cannot also be said that the amendment is malafide.
14. In view of the aforegoing discussion, the Impugned Order is set aside. The amendment as sought for by the petitioner/defendant No.9 is allowed subject to payment of costs in a sum of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited to the Advocates'
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2925 WP No. 15410 of 2021 HC-KAR Association, Bengaluru. The costs shall be paid within two weeks from today.
15. The amended Written Statement shall also be filed by the petitioner/defendant No.9 within two weeks from today. In view of amendment to the Written Statement, the plaintiffs are at liberty to file a Replication (Rejoinder) within two weeks thereafter.
16. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. It is clarified that the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated before the Trial Court.
17. All pending applications stand closed. Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE Rs/BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19