High Court of Karnataka Allows Amendment of Plaint in Suit for Declaration and Injunction — Amendment Sought to Include Alternative Relief of Possession and Mesne Profits Held Not to Change Nature of Suit or Cause Prejudice to Defendant. The court set aside the trial court's order rejecting the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, holding that pre-trial amendments should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, legal representatives of the original plaintiff, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shimoga, in O.S. No.59/2021, whereby the trial court rejected I.A. No.12 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment of the plaint. The original suit was filed by Smt. Nagarathna (since deceased) against the respondents for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives were brought on record. Subsequently, the petitioners filed I.A. No.12 seeking to amend the plaint to incorporate alternative relief of possession and mesne profits, contending that the defendants had allegedly dispossessed them during the pendency of the suit. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the defendants. The High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the amendment application. The court held that the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial and therefore, the liberal approach should be adopted. The amendment did not change the nature of the suit as it was based on the same cause of action and sought alternative relief. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants as they would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement. The court emphasized that the purpose of amendment is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real controversy between the parties. The trial court was directed to permit the petitioners to carry out the amendment and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Pre-trial amendment - The court held that amendments before trial should be liberally allowed if they do not cause prejudice to the opposite party and are necessary for determining the real controversy. The trial court's rejection of the amendment on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit was erroneous as the amendment sought alternative relief based on the same cause of action. (Paras 10-15)

B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Change in Nature of Suit - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The court clarified that an amendment seeking alternative relief of possession and mesne profits does not change the nature of the suit when the original suit was for declaration and injunction. The amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real controversy between the parties. (Paras 16-20)

C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Prejudice - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The court held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as the amendment was sought before the commencement of trial and the defendant would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement. The trial court's finding of prejudice was not justified. (Paras 21-25)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking to incorporate alternative relief of possession and mesne profits, on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the defendant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shimoga, in O.S. No.59/2021 on I.A. No.12 is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No.12 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to carry out the amendment in the plaint. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Order VI Rule 17 CPC
  • Liberal approach to amendment
  • Pre-trial amendment
  • Change in nature of suit
  • Prejudice to opposite party
  • Alternative relief
  • Mesne profits
  • Possession
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 13

Writ Petition No.25332 of 2022 (GM-CPC)

2025-09-25

Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao

Sri. Mahabaleshwara Rao K.N. for petitioners, Sri. Vijayakumar R for respondent 1

Smt. Nagarathna (since deceased) by her LRs: Smt. Mahadevi, Smt. Pushpa, Smt. Anitha, Ranganath S.P., Prasanth S.P.

Sri. Kamakshi Prasanna Sri Doddamma Jala Durgamma Devalaya Samithi rep. by its General Secretary Mr. Shi. Du. Somashekar and Mr. S. Mukunda

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging rejection of amendment application in a suit for declaration and injunction.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 19.11.2022 rejecting I.A. No.12 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and to allow the amendment of the plaint.

Filing Reason

The trial court rejected the amendment application on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to the defendants.

Previous Decisions

The trial court rejected I.A. No.12 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 19.11.2022.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC? Whether the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit? Whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the defendants?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the amendment was necessary to incorporate alternative relief of possession and mesne profits as the defendants had allegedly dispossessed them during the pendency of the suit. The amendment was sought before trial and would not change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice. Respondents opposed the amendment contending that it would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice to them.

Ratio Decidendi

Amendments to pleadings before the commencement of trial should be liberally allowed if they are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and do not cause prejudice to the opposite party. The amendment seeking alternative relief of possession and mesne profits does not change the nature of the suit when the original suit was for declaration and injunction, as it is based on the same cause of action. The trial court's rejection on the ground of change in nature of suit and prejudice was erroneous.

Judgment Excerpts

The amendment sought before trial should be liberally allowed if it does not cause prejudice to the opposite party. The amendment does not change the nature of the suit as it is based on the same cause of action. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants as they would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement.

Procedural History

The original plaintiff Smt. Nagarathna filed O.S. No.59/2021 for declaration and injunction. During pendency, she died and her LRs were brought on record. The LRs filed I.A. No.12 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint to incorporate alternative relief of possession and mesne profits. The trial court rejected the application on 19.11.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the matter, reserved orders on 09.09.2025, and pronounced judgment on 25.09.2025 allowing the writ petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI Rule 17
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Amendment of Plaint in Suit for Declaration and Injunction — Amendment Sought to Include Alternative Relief of Possession and Mesne Profits Held Not to Change Nature of Suit or Cause Prejudice to Defendant. The court ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition for Correction of Date of Birth in Service Record — Belated Claim After 30 Years of Service Not Entertained. Petitioner sought correction of date of birth from 12/12/1962 to 12/03/1966 but failed to explain dela...