Sri. B. N. Babu Reddy v. Sri. B. N. Yema Reddy

ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed."

Relying on these citations, it is submitted that an application filed with inordinate delay, without proper

explanation, has been allowed, and the trial court ought to have dismissed the application.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has filed an affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the amendment. There are certain typographical mistakes which have to be corrected, and certain facts already stated by him and a factual foundation is already laid in the pleading. It is stated that the trial Court, considering all those aspects, has allowed the application. It is submitted that while considering an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the Court has to be liberal and cannot adopt a technical approach. It is submitted that the trial Court has considered all these aspects and has rightly allowed the application, and there are no grounds to interfere. Further he has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and other4 in which paragraph No. 7 reads as follows: "7. In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the opinion of the Trial Court

4 (2002) 7 SCC 559

it was one to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the reasons which has prevailed with the Trial Court and with the High Court in refusing the prayer for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiffs revision. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings."

Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that the law is settled in this regard and the trial Court has rightly applied the same to the facts of the case. It is further submitted that there are no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial court.

¶5Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The whole purpose of filing an affidavit in support of an IA is to bring to the notice of the court, what is the relief petitioner is seeking, and on what grounds he has come before the court. When the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and seeks to amend the pleadings, after 14 years from the date of filing of the plaint, all the more reason the plaintiff has to

explain why he wants to amend the plaint and why he could not do so at the earliest point of time.

¶6This Court has perused the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of I.A.No.1. Paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pertain to the facts of the case, and Paragraph No. 6 states that after the father's death, defendant No.1 took all documents pertaining to the joint family properties into his custody, has not provided any information about the joint family properties and income, and has also started mismanaging the joint family properties, colluding with his wife. Accordingly, in June 2010, he demanded that the defendant effect the partition in respect of the ancestral and joint family properties. Since they declined to effect the partition, he is constrained to file the suit. However, due to lack of knowledge about the entire joint family properties, he was unable to include all the properties left behind by the father and the properties purchased by defendant No.1 out of the joint family nucleus. However, by collecting some documents, he has filed the suit. Recently, he has engaged an advocate on record and, after going through the case papers, pleadings and plaint schedules and comparing them with the documents, has suggested amending the plaint

as sought for accordingly. He has therefore constrained to file the application. For want of knowledge and documents, he was unable to plead the description of the property in the plaint and in the schedule, which is bona fide and not intentional. As such, he seeks to amend the pleadings, and this court has also perused the amendment that the petitioner is seeking.

¶7The petitioner has failed to mention the reasons for seeking the amendment and the reason for the delay, merely stating that his father died. From the date of the institution of the suit till now, 14 long years have passed, and now filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint. Liberally construing an application under Order VI Rule 17 doesn't mean that, whenever the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint, the court would allow the party to amend the pleadings. This kind of liberal approach, as projected by the trial court and as projected by the defendant, would be counterproductive. Being hyper-technical and being too liberal, without even going into the basic factors while deciding an Order VI Rule 17 application, is also not correct. In this case, the trial court has very casually allowed this application without appreciating any of the facts. The trial court has not even looked into the affidavit that is

filed, and even the objections filed by the defendants are brushed aside, saying that all these aspects will be decided at a later stage. The affidavit does not even disclose when he has come to know about all these properties and with regard to the other pleadings. In the considered opinion of this court, such a liberal approach is not in the interest of justice, and the judicial order has to necessarily contain the reasons for passing such an order or for arriving at such a conclusion.

¶8In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.4476/2010 dated 13.06.2025 passed by the XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court and the writ petition is allowed. ii. Within 1 week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the petitioner shall file the detailed application and from one week from

there on the respondent shall file his objection to the said detailed application. iii. From there after within one month the court shall pass appropriate order. iv. Pending I.As., in this writ petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24948 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.N. BABU REDDY SON OF LATE N. NARAYAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED RESIDING AT NO.40, DODDABANASAWADI, BENGALURU -560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.N.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B.N.YEMA REDDY SON OF LATE N. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.852, 7TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, KALYANA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043 2. SRI. B.N. SADASHIVA REDDY, SON OF LATE N. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BEHIND BALDWIN SCHOOL, BENGALURU – 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.CHANDRAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/D: 07.01.2026) by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 13.06.2025 PASSED ON 1.A.NO.1 IN O.S. 4476/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XVTH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE -A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.4476/2010 dated 13.06.2025 passed by the XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the defendant is before this court. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition in the year 2010. Now, the present application has been filed seeking an amendment to the plaint, which was allowed by the impugned order. While allowing the application, the trial Court considered the case of both the parties. The trial Court observed that the dispute between the parties can be adjudicated at the time of trial. Without a full-fledged trial, at this stage, this Court cannot presume that the properties are self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 and his wife. No doubt, there are some corrections and clerical errors that crept into the plaint, which can generally be permitted to be amended. These amendments are often allowed, as they do not alter the fundamental nature of the suit and merely clarify the required corrections. Accordingly, the trial Court has allowed the I.A and permitted the plaintiff to carry out the necessary amendments. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the suit was filed in the year 2010. Even before the defendant entered appearance, I.A. No. 4 was filed on 28.07.2010 seeking an amendment to the plaint, and that was allowed. It is submitted that it was allowed by amendment on 15.02.2020. learned counsel further submits that yet another application has been filed seeking amendment of the plaint, and the same has been disputed by them by filing their objections. It is submitted that the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. does not disclose any reasons for the plaintiff not having taken these grounds or for seeking amendment of the pleadings. After almost 14 years from the date of filing of the suit, the present I.A. No. 1 is filed seeking amendment of the pleadings. The trial court in a mechanical manner has allowed the application. Though there is no pleading with regard to due diligence all these aspects were not considered by the trial court. He relied on the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Venkatamma Namasivayam since dead by LR's and Ors Vs. Sri. K.Anil Kumar arising out of WP.No.16411/2025 dated 08.07.2025 in paragraph No. 13 and 14 which reads as follows: "13. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners with regard to the purport of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, there can no qualm about the principles laid down therein. He has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment in the case of DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU v. SUMAN AGARWAL (