Smt Mallika v. Sri D Ravichandra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9679 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MALLIKA, W/O K. SHANMUGHAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.441/2, 5TH CROSS, SHANKARAPPA GARDEN, BASAVANAGAR, MARATHALLI POST, BANGALURU - 560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SRI D. RAVICHANDRA, S/O R. DORAISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, B.M.P NO.23, BENAGANAHALLI, NEAR WATER TANK, DOORAVANINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶2SRI B. M. PRAKASH, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.P-3, SAI GOWRI RESIDENCY, by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka

C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRI HARSHA VARDHAN P, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2026, WP STANDS REJECTED IN R/O R3 TO R6)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - QUASH ORDER DATED

18.08.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25093/2014 BY THE LEARNED LXXIII ADDL. CITY AND CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU 9CCH NO.74) VIDE AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

18.08.2020 passed in O.S.No.25093/2014 by the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH.No.74) (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court for short).

¶2Heard Sri V.F. Kumbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Harsha Vardhan P, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶3The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.25093/2014 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or her supporters from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or causing any encumbrances by way of auctioning the property to any third party involved. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating certain additional paragraphs in the plaint and by seeking an additional prayer for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated

09.07.2011. The trial Court, vide order dated 08.03.2017,

rejected the said application on the ground that the suit was one for bare injunction and that the relief sought was based on the cause of action stated in the plaint.

¶4It is required to be noticed that, subsequently, the plaintiffs filed another application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend the plaint and also seeking an additional prayer to direct the defendant to pay back the advance sale price of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by the plaintiffs under the agreement of sale dated 09.07.2011, with adequate interest from the date of the suit to the plaintiffs. The said application was opposed by the defendant. However, the trial Court, under the impugned order dated 18.08.2020, allowed the said application.

¶5The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is one for bare injunction and that a specific cause of action is shown in the said suit. An earlier attempt to amend the plaint was negated by the trial Court. However, by ignoring the said fact, another

application for amendment was allowed. It is required to be noticed that the relief sought in the plaint is one for injunction and that, in the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the relief of specific performance, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 08.03.2017. Subsequently, another application was filed seeking amendment of the pleadings and also seeking an additional prayer for the refund of the advance amount.

¶6It is required to be noticed that the trial Court, taking into consideration the fact that the application for amendment was filed at the pre-trial stage and that, instead of asking the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit seeking the relief of refund, it would be appropriate to allow the application and proceeded to allow the application. In my view, the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application. However, the petitioner is specifically contending that the relief of refund of the advance amount is barred by the law of limitation. Hence, the application

seeking amendment of the plaint and the additional relief seeking refund of the advance amount shall only have prospective effect and not retrospective. In other words, the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff is allowed would have effect only from the date of the application and not from the date of filing the suit.

¶7With the aforesaid modification, the order allowing the application is upheld.

¶8Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶9The contention with regard to the law of limitation is required to be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18