(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to-quash the order dated 20.03.2020 passed on i.a. no.24 by the i addl. senior civil judge, mysuru in o.s.no.685/2011 vide annexure-a and pleased to allow the I.A. no.24 filed by the petitioners at annexure-f and etc.,)

Oral Order:

1. Defendants No.1 to 5 are 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 20.03.2020 passed on I.A No.24 in O.S No.685/2011, by the Court of Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, Mysuru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. O.S No.685/2011 is filed by the respondent No.1 herein seeking the relief of declaration of title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule property and also to further declare that the judgment and decree passed in OS No.771/2005, confirmed in RA No.1065/2009 are not binding on the plaintiff.

4. The contesting defendants have filed written statement in the suit and opposed the suit claim. When the suit was at the stage of addressing final arguments, I.A.No. 24 was filed on behalf of defendant No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend his written statement by incorporating proposed paragraph No.2(a) immediately after paragraph No.2 in the written statement. The application was opposed by the defendant No.6 by filing objections. The trial Court while order impugned has rejected I.A No.24 and being aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 to 5 are before this Court.

5. Perusal of the material record would go to show that respondent No.2 herein, who is defendant No.6 in OS No.685/2011 had earlier filed O.S No.771/2005 before the jurisdictional Civil Court against the petitioners herein seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale executed by them in respect of the property, which is subject matter of the present suit in O.S No.685/2011. The said suit was contested by the petitioners herein. After a full-fledged trial, O.S No.771/2005 was decreed and the judgment and decree passed in OS No.771/2005 was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners herein in R.A No.1065/2009. It is not in dispute that the judgment and decree passed in OS No.771/2005, which is confirmed in R.A No.1065/2009, has attained finality.

6. In the proposed amendment, a plea is sought to be made on behalf of the petitioners herein that defendant No.6 had played fraud and got executed the agreement for sale dated 27.01.2001, based on which he had approached the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of specific performance of the said agreement in O.S No.771/2005. They have sought to contend that the transaction between petitioners and respondent No.2 herein was benami and is hit by the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act and also by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

7. The trial Court having appreciated that though similar contentions were not raised in the written statement that was filed in O.S No.771/2005, in which the petitioners herein were defendants, during the course of arguments, such a contention was urged on behalf of the petitioners and since the contentions urged were questions of law, the same was considered in O.S No.771/2005 and answered in the negative. The First Appellate Court in R.A No.1065/2009 had observed that respondent No.2 herein, who was the plaintiff in O.S No.771/2005, was also an agriculturist and therefore, the bar provided under provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act will not apply. It is under these circumstances, the trial Court has rejected I.A No.24 filed on behalf of defendants No.1 to 5. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order.

8. In addition to the same, the application is filed at the stage of arguments. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC clearly states that, no application seeking for amendment of the pleadings can be entertained after commencement of the trial, unless, due diligence is proved by the party making the application. In the case of hand, the contention now sought to be raised was earlier raised by the petitioners herein in O.S No.771/2005 and also in R.A No.1065/2009 unsuccessfully. The very same contention is now sought to be raised when the present suit is at the stage of arguments.

9. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

10. Since the suit is of the year 2011, the trial Court shall make endeavours to dispose of the suit, which is at the stage of arguments, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than the period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.