'D' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU- 2 v. SRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI., ADVOCATE)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is hereby allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. VI r. 17
Judgment
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SRI. NAGARAJ N NAIDU
2. SRI. NAGARAJ N NAIDU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGAPPA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT # 2154/4, STERLING TULIP APARTMENT, 'D' BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU- 2. …PETITIONERS SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI VASANT SHAMARAO KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE SHAMARAO KULKARNI.
SRI. CHETAN K V AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SRI. VASANT SHAMARAO KULKARNI.
SMT. APARNA DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2854 WP No. 36485 of 2025 HC-KAR ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 2152/7, BBMP KATHA # 2203/2222/2152/7, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU. (BY SRI. HITESH.D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON I.A.NO. XVI IN O.S.NO.184/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-12) AT BENGALURU, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.184 of 2025 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-12) at Bengaluru is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 whereby, the said application-I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint by - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2854 WP No. 36485 of 2025 HC-KAR incorporating additional pleadings and prayer was rejected by the Trial Court.
2. A perusal of the appeal on record would indicate that in the first instance, the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents/ defendants for their/permanent injunction simplicitor and for other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the respondents/defendants. Even prior to settlement/framing of issues, the petitioner filed the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment by incorporating additional prayers and schedule together with corresponding pleadings in this regard. The said application having been opposed by the respondents/ defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit and its cause of action, and that the proposed amendment was not necessary to adjudicate upon the issues in controversy between other parties. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2854 WP No. 36485 of 2025 HC-KAR
Operative part
3. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dismissing I.A.No.2 is clearly contrary to well settled principles of law governing amendment of pleadings as held in various judgments of the Apex Court including the case of (i) LIC Vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1 (ii) L.C.Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B.Shivakumar AIR 2015 SC 3364 (iii) Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & others 2024 INSC 726. It is also pertinent to note that the suit is of year 2025 and the amendment application was filed within a period of Eight (8) months from the date of institution of the suit and the same cannot be said to be barred by limitation. It is also pertinent to note that the proposed amendment is relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and since the respondents/defendants would have an opportunity to file their additional written statement to the amended plaint and contest the suit on all aspects of the matter, no - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2854 WP No. 36485 of 2025 HC-KAR prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants if the proposed amendments were to be allowed as sought for in I.A.No.2. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting I.A.No.2 has resulted in miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.184 of 2025 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH- 12), Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii) Application-I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs is hereby allowed. iv) Petitioners/plaintiffs are directed to carry out amendment and file amended plaint before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing of the suit - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2854 WP No. 36485 of 2025 HC-KAR before the Trial Court. Liberty is reserved in favour respondents/defendants additional written statement to amended plaint. v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is hereby allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VI r. 17.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.