(BY SRI. SHREERAM THIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADV & Ors. v. Ayyakannu (AIR 2002 SC 3369) and L C Hanumanthappa vs. H B & Ors.

SRI R CHANDRA S/O D RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD K R PURAM BENGALUERU-560036

(BY SRI. SHREERAM THIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADV., FOR …PETITIONER SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka SRI KARTHIK V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B SHAFIULLA S/O M A BASHEER AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.11, K S GARDEN MURPHY TOWN, HALSOOR BENGALURU-560008

SRI D K MOHAN S/O D K KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO. 264, NANDANA BAJAJ LAYOUT - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5355 WP No. 29505 of 2025 HC-KAR DEVASANDRA BENGALURU-560036 (V/O/DT. 30.01.2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W; SRI C S PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O S NO.26134/2016 ON THE FILE OF LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU AND ETC., 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 Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner.

2. This petition by the plaintiff is directed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed in OS 26134/2016 whereby the application IA No. 1 of 2025 filed by the petitioner plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings as well as prayers was dismissed by the trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5355 WP No. 29505 of 2025 HC-KAR

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against respondent - defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the respondent-defendants, the petitioner plaintiff instant application on

31.01.2025 seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings and reliefs. The said application having been opposed by the respondents - defendants, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner - plaintiff had not exercised due diligence in filing the amendment application coupled with the fact that the amendment application was barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, the trial Court dismissed the application for amendment filed by the petitioner - plaintiff who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the averments made in the affidavit in support of the amendment application, which clearly - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5355 WP No. 29505 of 2025 HC-KAR establishes that the petitioner, despite having exercised due diligence, was not in a position to seek amendment earlier, thereby warranting permission to be granted in his favour to seek amendment. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors - W.P. No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025, the finding recorded by the trial Court that due diligence had not been exercised by the petitioner in terms of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC deserves to be set aside.

In so far as the finding recorded by the trial Court that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation and therefore cannot be permitted is concerned, it is well settled that when amendment to a pleading is opposed on the ground of limitation, the proper course of action would be to permit the amendment and direct that the amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing the amendment application and by leaving open the question of limitation to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law as held by the Apex Court in - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5355 WP No. 29505 of 2025 HC-KAR the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Others (AIR 2002 SC 3369) and L C Hanumanthappa vs. H B Shivakumar ((2016) 1 SCC 332). Under these circumstances, having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court governing amendment of pleadings in LIC vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., ((2022) 16 SCC 1 and in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others (2024 INSC 726, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and IA No. 1 of 2025 deserves to be allowed by issuing certain directions.