logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 Kar HC 1995 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 11298 Of 2020 (GM-CPC)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Parties : B. Goutham Chand Versus Jayalakshmi & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S. Raju, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, R6 & R7, V. Vijayashekara Gowda, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 11-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2025 KHC 52546,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- Code of Civil Procedure

2. Catch Words:
- amendment of plaint
- schedule property
- permanent injunction
- petition

3. Summary:
The writ petition under Article 227 challenges the order dated 01‑07‑2020 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, which rejected IA No.VII filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint’s schedule to correct the land measurement from 13¼ guntas to 15 guntas, asserting that the mistake was inadvertent and did not alter the suit’s nature or cause of action. The trial court’s rejection of the amendment was held unjustified, especially as the application was filed before trial commenced. The High Court set aside the impugned order and granted the amendment, directing the trial court to expedite the pending suit.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records in O.S.No.47/2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Channapatnaquash/set aside the order dtd.1.7.2020 on IA No.7 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.47/2015 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Channapatna vide Annexure-L to the W.P. consequently allow the said application by permitting the petitioner to amend the measurement of the schedule property.)

Oral Order

1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 01.07.2020 passed on IA No.VII in O.S.No.47 of 2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.47 of 2015 before the jurisdiction civil Court, Channapatna seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the contesting defendants have filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. I.A.No.VII was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to amend the schedule of the plaint. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection. The trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

4. In I.A.No.VII which is filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, the amendment sought is to change the extent of land which is mentioned as 13¼ guntas and in place mention as 15 guntas. In the affidavit which is filed in support of the application it is clearly stated that the applicant who is the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed and in the said sale deed the extent of the land is mentioned as 15 guntas. Even in the revenue records of the of the suit schedule property, the extent of the land is mentioned as 15 guntas but inadvertently in the schedule of the plaint, it is mentioned as 13¼ guntas instead of 15 guntas. It is under these circumstances, application Under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment in the schedule of the plaint by changing the extent of the land from 13¼ guntas to 15 guntas. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit nor the cause of action for the suit. The said application was filed even before trial was commenced in the suit. Therefore, in my considered opinion the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. Under the circumstances, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.07.2020 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.47 of 2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna is set aside. Consequently, the prayer made in I.A.No.VII is granted.

Since the suit is of the year 2015, endeavour shall be made by the trial Court to expedite trial and dispose of the suit at the earliest.
 
  CDJLawJournal