Karnataka High Court
Sri Jagadeesh @ Jagannath vs Sri Shanmukahappa on 12 January, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1647
WP No. 367 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 367 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGADEESH @ JAGANNATH
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PRIEST OF RANGANATHASWAMY TEMPLE,
R/AT. DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
ANTHARAGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K V SATEESHCHANDRA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SHANMUKAHAPPA
S/O. LATE C SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT. DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
Digitally ANTHARAGANGE POST,
signed by BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
MADHURI S SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
Location: 2. SMT. B. JAYASHEELA,
High Court of W/O. SHANMUKHAPPA,
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT. DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
ANTHARAGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
3. SRI. SRINIVASA,
S/O. SHEKHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
ANTHARANGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1647
WP No. 367 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. SRI. SADASHIVAIAH
S/O BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
ANTHARAGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
5. SRI RAVI
S/O VENKOBA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
ANTHARAGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
6. SRI. YOGANANDA ALIAS APPAJI
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
ANTHARAGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
7. SRI. SHANKAR RAO,
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY RAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
ANTHARAGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
8. SRI. CHANDRU,
S/O. RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT. DEVARANARASIPURA VILLAGE,
ANTHARAGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
9. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
ANTHARAGANGE GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
R/AT. ANTHARAGANGE VILLAGE,
BHADRAVTHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1647
WP No. 367 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER DTD 19.12.2025 IN IA NO. XXVI IN OS NO.
50/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE ADN JMFC AT
BHADRAVATHI VIDE ANX-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.50/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed on I.A.No.XXVI filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, whereby the said application filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings and additional relief of mandatory injunction was allowed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and other defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been -4- NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR contested by the defendants, both parties went to trial and at the stage of arguments, the plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint, which was contested by the petitioner - defendant No.1 and culminated in the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 allowing IA No.26 as hereunder.
"ORDER ON I.A.NO.XXVI The plaintiffs filed this IA under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC and praying to permit them to amend the plaint.
2. Under the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are intending to insert Para 8(A) and (B) in Page No.4 of their plaint and to seek the relief of mandatory injunction.
3. In the affidavit accompanying to the IA, the plaintiff No.1 Shanmukhappa has almost reiterated the original plaint allegations. Further, he stated that, this Court has granted ad interim exparte injunction in favour of the plaintiffs on 22.01.2018 and despite of such injunction order, the defendants have tried to fence the panchayath road existing towards the northern side of the suit property and therefore, he has complained to the concerned police on 10.03.2018. He further stated that, on 15.03.2018 the defendants have succeeded in completing the fencing of the disputed road and closed the access to the said road. That, the plaintiffs approached the Tahasildar, Bhadravathi by complaining the said illegal act of the defendant No.1 to 7 and due to the intervention of the Tahasildar, the defendants have removed the fence. He further alleged that, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have cleared the branches of the tree which covered their house and by misusing the said situation, the defendants have made a false complaint and again -5- NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR fenced the disputed road by denying access to the plaintiffs. He stated that, the said subsequent events has necessitated the plaintiffs to seek the relief of mandatory injunction and to plead those subsequent events in the plaint by way of amendment. Therefore, he prays to allow the amendment.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants filed his objection and praying to dismiss the IA as not maintainable. He contending that, the plaintiffs have not filed any documents to support their allegations and falsely making such allegation without any proof. He contending that, the plaintiffs have not pleaded the exact dates of the subsequent events and filed this belated application at the fag end of the proceedings. That, the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and sought only to fulfill the lacuna in the case of the plaintiffs. That, the plaintiffs intending to seek the relief of mandatory injunction without seeking the declaration and therefore, the proposed amendment is not maintainable. Accordingly, the defendants prays to dismiss the IA.
5. In view of the rival contentions of both the parties, the following points are arise for my consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties?
2. Whether the plaintiffs could not have raised proposed amendment before commencement of trial in spite of the due diligence?
3. What Order?
6. I have heard both the sides on the I.A. -6- NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR 6.1. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the following decisions:
i) (2023) 3 KCCR 2485 Kum.Meenakshi & others Vs. Smt.H.Nagarathnamma & others
ii) (2024) 4 CCC 651 (SC) Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & others
iii) (2023) 1 KCCR 1 (SC) Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & another
iv) (2023) 3 KCCR 2254 Fakirapa Vs. Nabisab 6.2. In support of his argument the learned counsel for defendants has relied upon the following decisions:
i) (2024) 1 KCCR 869 (SC) Basavaraj Vs. Indira & others
ii) (2023) 3 KCCR 2349 Daiyakku alias Devaki through Lrs Vs. Khatijamma & others
iii) (2023) 2 KCCR SN 153 Chandrashekar Vs. K.A.Srinivasan & others
7. Carefully perused the entire materials available before this court.
8. My answers to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2 In the Affirmative.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR Point No.3: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 and 2: These points are inter connected to each other and are based on common set of facts. Hence, they are taken together for my common consideration in order to avoid the repetition of facts and for the purpose of brevity.
10. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs filed this suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction by alleging that, the defendants are interfering with their peaceful usage of a road existing towards the northern side of the suit property by trying to fence the boundary of Sri. Ranganathaswamy Temple situated next to the suit property. The plaintiffs alleged that, they are using the disputed road to gain access to small industry established within their suit property and the existence of the said road is also supported by panchayath documents. On the other hand, the defendants are the persons concerned to the administration of Sri. Ranganathaswamy temple and they contesting this suit on the ground that, there is no road is in existence towards the northern side of the suit property.
11. The records would further reveal that, the trial of this suit is already completed and I have already heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the merits of the suit. Meanwhile, the defendants have filed an application for seeking appointment of commissioner. The said application was allowed and a Court Commissioner was also appointed as sought for. After filing the commissioner report, the plaintiffs raised objection to the same and hence, the commissioner was also examined as a court witness and the matter was again posted for the further argument of the plaintiffs on merits. In the meanwhile, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has come up -8- NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR with this IA and seeking to permit the plaintiffs to amend the plaint.
12. As already said, under proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are intending to insert the facts that are allegedly took place during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs contending that. despite of there being an exparte injunction order, the defendants have fenced the disputed road for which they have lodged complaint before the police on 10.03.2018. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that, the defendants have succeeded to complete the fencing of disputed road as on 15.03.2018 and thereafter, it was removed by the intervention of the Tahasildar, Bhadravathi. However, the plaintiffs further alleged that, the plaintiffs have cleared the branches of tree which covered to their house and taking such situation, the defendants have made false complaint against them and again fenced the disputed road blocking the access to the industry existing in the suit property. Thus, the plaintiffs claim that, the said subsequent events necessitated them to amend their plaint and to seek the relief of mandatory injunction.
13. It is true that, the plaintiffs have not stated the actual date when the defendants have ultimately succeeded in fencing the disputed road. But, it is specifically contended by the plaintiffs that, the said event was took place during the pendency of the suit. A bare perusal of the facts intended to be inserted by the plaintiffs under the proposed amendment would prima facie discloses that, they are intending to plead about the subsequent event took place during the pendency of suit and the proposed amendment is not to introduce any new cause of action. Under the original plaint itself, the plaintiffs have alleged the interference of the defendants to the peaceful usage of the disputed road by the defendants by making attempts to fence -9- NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR the said road. Now, the plaintiffs are alleging that. the defendants have succeeded in their attempt and fenced the disputed road. The said alleged subsequent events pleaded by the plaintiffs appears to be in continuation with the original cause of action. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not introduce any new cause of action. In view of the allegations made in the proposed amendment, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to seek the relief of mandatory injunction. The said relief is also in continuation with the original relief sought in the plaint. Hence, the nature of the suit will not be changed by allowing the proposed amendment.
14. Moreover, the core of the issue involved in this suit is the alleged existence of the disputed road, its usage by the plaintiffs to reach their industry existing in the suit property and the alleged act of the defendants in fencing the said road. Under the original plaint, the plaintiffs have only alleged about the attempts made by the defendants to fence the disputed road. Now, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants have completed such attempt during the pendency of suit. Hence, the facts intended to be pleaded under the proposed amendment is nothing but in continuation with the original plaint allegations and the same revolves around the actual dispute between the parties. In view of the defendants allegedly fencing the disputed road, adjudication of the said allegations is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. If the proposed amendment is not allowed, then it will not only cause injustice to the plaintiffs but, may also result in multiplicity of proceedings. On the other hand, allowing the proposed amendment will no where prejudice the case of the defendants nor cause injustice to them.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR
15. It is true that, the trial of the suit is already completed and the proceedings are at fag end. However, according to the plaintiffs the facts pleaded by them under the proposed amendment were took place only during the peridency of this suit. Therefore, it cannot be expected that the plaintiffs would have pleaded those facts in the original plaint. It is further noticed that, during the pendency of the suit itself, the plaintiffs have filed L.A. VIII seeking temporary mandatory injunction by alleging that, the defendants have succeeded in their attempt to fence the disputed road. However they have not pressed further the said IA by reporting that, the fence affixed by the defendants were removed with the assistance of the Tahasildar, Bhadravathi. Now the plaintiffs are again alleging that the defendants are again succeeded in fencing the road and intending to bring the amendment accordingly. It is true that, there is some delay in bringing the proposed amendment. But, the sad delay would not be come in the way of allowing the proposed of real amendment as it appears to be necessary for determination of question in controversy between the parties.
16. So far as the objection of the defendants that, the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be sought without seeking the relief of declaration of title is concerned, the said ground cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, the dispute is in respect of a public road Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek the relief of declaration of his title to the said road. On the other hand, there is a legal obligation on both parties for usage of road and not to obstruct such public usage. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs can only seek the relief of mandatory injunction and not his title to public road. Hence, the said objection cannot be accepted.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & another reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 has summarized the general rules of amendment as follows:
*70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
(1) xxxxxx
(ii) 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 VI Rule 17 of the CPC
(ii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed
(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and
(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the partie seeking amendment does 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).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless
(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,
(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,
(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
(vii) 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.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) 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.
(x) 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,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR 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.
(xi) 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 & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)
18. The above ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meenakshi's case and Dinesh Goyal 's case (supra), upon which the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon. In view of said ratio, it is very well settled that, the amendments which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, which avoids the multiplicity of proceedings, which does not result in injustice to the other side which does not intending to withdraw any admissions and does not intending to raise time barred claim, shall be allowed as a general rule. In the case on hand, as already observed by this
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR Court, proposed amendment is very much necessary for effective and proper adjudication of real controversy between the parties in respect of the disputed road. The proposed amendment will not only avoid the multiplicity of proceedings but also does not cause any kind of injustice to the other side. The proposed amendment is not intending to withdraw any clear admissions by the plaintiffs. The defendants are also not disputing that, the additional relief sought by the plaintiffs is time barred. Rather, according to the plaintiffs, circumstances arose during the pendency of the suit has necessitated them to seek such relief. Therefore, the proposed amendment shall be allowed.
19. So far as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants is concerned, in Basavaraj's case (supra), the appellant had filed an amendment application by seeking to insert the relief of declaration on the ground of mistake and oversight. The Apex Court found that, the relief sought by the appellant was time barred and hence, rejected the prayer of amendment of plaint. But. the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different from the one that was come for consideration before the Apex Court. Here, it is not at all the case of the defendants that, the reliefs intended to be sought by the plaintiffs under the proposed amendment is barred by limitation and the ground urged here for inserting further plea by way of amendment are not due to oversight or mistake. Hence, the said ratio is not applicable to the case on hand.
20. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Daiyakku's case (supra) is concerned, the appellant therein filed an application for amendment of plaint seeking to include the alternative prayer for a decree of possession before the Hon'ble High Court, where he challenged
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR the dismissal of his suit by the Trial Court. The Hon'ble High Court found that, the relief sought by the appellant therein under the proposed amendment was raised after lapse of several decades and barred by time. Hence, the prayer of amendment was rejected. But, the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different from the one come for consideration of the Hon'ble High Court. Here, there is neither delay of decades in seeking the amendment nor the relief is said to be barred by limitation.
21. The defendants relied upon a short note about a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Chandrashekar's case (supra). It is found that, the Hon'ble High Court in the said case denied the amendment of pleadings which sought after commencement of trial and on the ground of plea of ignorance of law and procedure by the petitioner-who is an advocate himself. But, the same is not the situation in the case on hand. The further details of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is not available Hence, it is not proper to rely upon the said judgment.
22. For all the above said reasons, this Court is of the considered view that, the proposed amendment is very much necessary for determination of real question in controversy between the parties and the same will also help this Court to comprehensively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Though it appears that, there is some delay in filing this application as the plaintiffs is not exercised due diligence completely, the said fact should not come in the way of this Court to allow the proposed amendment as it would does not cause any injustice to the defendants. Such negligence of the plaintiffs can be met with by imposing cost. Accordingly, Point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR
23. Point No.3: Resultantly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER I.A. No.XXVI filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC is allowed with cost of Rs.3,000/-.
Consequently, the plaintiffs are permitted to amend their plaint as sought for.
The plaintiffs shall carry out the amendment in the original plaint and shall file the amended plaint on the next date of hearing without fail."
4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has considered and appreciated the rival contentions including the proposed amendment and has arrived at the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment was necessary and essential for the purpose of elucidating the issues controversy between the parties. The Trial Court has also taken note of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited - AIR 2022 SC 4256 and has held that since the petitioner would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the petitioner if the proposed amendment
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR was allowed as sought for by the plaintiffs. It is also pertinent to note that since the petitioner has raised defence of limitation, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu & another - AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C. Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B. Shivakumar - (2016) 1 SCC 332, the proposed amendment would necessarily have to be allowed by directing 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 filed on 03.11.2025.
5. Under these circumstances and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing application - I.A.No.26 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423 case.
6. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1647 WP No. 367 of 2026 HC-KAR
(ii) It is made clear that the proposed amendment as allowed by the Trial Court shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from 03.11.2025 i.e., from the date on which I.A.No.26 was filed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44