Karnataka High Court
Sri H S Lokesh vs Sri K S Moorthy on 30 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 14.07.2025
Pronounced on : 30.07.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.19590 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI H.S.LOKESH
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.313/314
SRIGANDHA NAGRA MAIN ROAD
HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI K.S.MOORTHY
S/O LATE K.SUBBARAO
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE BANGALORE TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES
HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED
NO.83/2/44, SRIGANDHADA KAVALU
SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
2
2. SRI G.N.KUMAR
S/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.004, BHINDUZEERWALA
APARTMENT, IV BLOCK
RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 010.
3. SRI A.MANJAPPA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.124, 2ND CROSS
KARNATAKA BADAVANE
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 086.
4. SMT.K.H.ANU
W/O SRI K.M.SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT SONALLE POST
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
5. SMT. BHOOMI REDDY SUREKHA
W/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.629, SRI RAMANAKRUPA
3RD CROSS, SUNKADAKATTE
VISHWANEEDAM POST
BENGALURU - 560 091.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2;
SRI MANOHAR B. K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4 AND R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 21.04.2025, PASSED VIDE I.A. NO. 1/2022, IN O.S.
3
NO. 1102/2017, BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE - A.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 14.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.1102 of 2017 is before this
Court calling in question an order dated 21-04-2025 passed by the
II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru
rejecting I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.
2. Heard Sri B.N. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri R.Abhinav, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 and Sri B.K.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.4 and 5.
4
3. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows: -
The petitioner/plaintiff originally invokes the jurisdiction of the
civil Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction praying that
the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession
over the suit schedule property. The suit, instituted in 2017,
progressed through the usual adversarial course. On 14-03-2018
defendant No.1 files his written statement and on 11-04-2018
defendants 2 and 3 filed their written statement. On 28-11-2018
the remaining defendants i.e., defendants 4 and 5 filed their written
statement. The concerned Court, framed its issues on 26-11-2019
and the trial was in full stride, evidence having been led in and the
case being at the stage of cross-examination. The plaintiff, after a
lapse of nearly 5 years, brings in an application under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC having filed it on 09-11-2022 seeking amendment of
the plaint. The defendants put up vehement defense by filing
objections to the said application on three different dates i.e.,
26-08-2023, 13-08-2024 and 13-02-2025. Considering the entire
submissions in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the
objections thereon, the concerned Court rejects the application. The
5
rejection of the application is what has driven the plaintiff to this
Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that what the petitioner has sought is only an amendment
to the plaint by adding a prayer of declaration. The learned counsel
would submit that the amendment sought would not change the
nature of the suit, as he has sought only a declaration to declare
that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. He would submit
that even in a case of permanent injunction the Court can enter into
the issue of ownership. To be on the safer side, the petitioner has
sought the amendment of the plaint. He would seek the order of
the concerned Court be set aside and the application be allowed.
5. Per contra, the defendants put up vehement opposition to
the application by contending that, if the relief of declaration is
sought after 6 years of filing the suit, it would amount to a new
case being set up by the petitioner with regard to ownership. Even
a suit for declaration has to be filed within three years from the
date of cause of action. The cause of action, in the case at hand,
6
has arisen when the suit for permanent injunction had been
preferred 5 years ago. Therefore, in a clever way the plaintiff
wants to get away with limitation. They would seek to contend that
Article 58 of the Limitation Act would clearly bar a suit beyond the
period of three years for declaration. Therefore, the defendants
would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
petitioner/plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and in
possession of suit schedule property bearing site Nos. 11 and 12 as
averred in the petition. On 31-12-1990 the vendors of the plaintiff
one Smt. Akkamahadevamma and K.H. Manjappa purchase 6 acres
of land which included the suit schedule properties.
Smt. Akkamahadevamma on 19-02-1999 executes a general power
of attorney in favour of K.H. Manjappa. On 08-03-1999 the vendors
of the plaintiff apply for conversion of land measuring 2 acres and
7
20 guntas which was acceded to and the suit schedule property
became a part of the converted land. It is the case of the plaintiff
that his vendors retained the suit schedule properties bearing Site
Nos. 11 and 12 while conveying other sites in favour of defendant
No.1. On 02-11-2017 the suit schedule properties are said to have
been purchased by the plaintiff from his vendors in terms of a
registered sale deed. Ownership claim re-springs from the said
date.
8. On 18-11-2017, barely two weeks after the said sale deed
being registered, the defendants are alleged to have interfered with
the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule
property. Therefore, the plaintiff institutes a suit for permanent
injunction in O.S.No.1102 of 2017. Cause of action for the said suit,
according to the plaintiff, has sprung on 18-11-2017, but files the
suit for permanent injunction. All the defendants at different dates
file their respective written statements. Issues are framed by the
concerned Court on 26-11-2019. The plaintiff, after framing of
issues, led his examination-in-chief and further examination.
Thereafter the matter got posted for his cross-examination.
8
9. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the examination of
the 1st defendant the ownership of the petitioner/plaintiff of the suit
schedule property i.e., site Nos. 11 and 12 comes to be doubted.
Therefore, the petitioner files an application under Order VI Rule 17
CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate a prayer
seeking the relief of declaration declaring himself to be the absolute
owner of the suit schedule properties and for a declaration that
several sale deeds and rectification deeds are not binding on him.
Since the entire issue revolves round the amendment sought, it
becomes necessary to notice the contents of the application. The
application seeking amendment reads as follows:
"APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION
151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the
Plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating the following in the
interest of justice and equity.
After prayer (ii) to add Prayer (iii) & (iv) as follows:
Prayer-iii: Pass a Judgment and Decree of declaration that the
Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Schedule Property.
Prayer-iv: Pass a Judgment and Decree of declaration that the
following sale deeds to pertaining Schedule A Property and
Schedule B property as illegal, void and the same is not binding
upon the plaintiff:
9
Schedule-A Property
(a) Sale deed dated: 09-03-2005 Registered as Document
No.BLN-1-56125-2005-05, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND142 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, executed by Sri K.S.Murthy in favour o f
Sri T.Hanumantharayappa.
(b) Sale deed dated 27-07-2006 Registered as Document
No.BLN-1-24444-2006-07, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND299 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, Bangalore executed by
Sri T.Hanumantharayappa in favour of G.N.Kumar.
(c) Sale deed dated 27-07-2006 Registered as Document
No.BLN-1-24452-2006-07, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND299 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, executed by Sri T.Hanumantharayappa
in favour of A.Manjappa.
Schedule-B Property:
(a) Sale deed dated 28-03-2005 registered as Document
No.BLN-1-60878-2004-05, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND157 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, executed by K.S.Moorthy in favour of
Sri Venkatappa.
(b) Sale deed dated 15-06-2006 Registered as Document
No.BLN-1-16422-2006-07, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND281 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, executed by Sri Venkatappa in favour of
Smt. H.S. Shalini.
(c) Rectification Deed dated 17-01-2013 Registered as
Document No.NGB-1-09754-2013-14, Book-1, Stored in
CD No.NGVD230 registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Bangalore North, executed by Sri Venkatappa
in favour of Smt. H.S. Shalini.
(d) Sale deed dated 19-01-2013 Registered as Document
No.NGB-1-09894-2012-13, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.NGBD231 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
10
Nagarbhavi, executed by Smt. H.S.Shalini in favour of
Smt. Boomi Reddy Surekha.
(e) Sale deed dated 28-03-2005 Registered as Document
No.BLN-1-60878-2004-05, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND157 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, executed by Sri K.S.Moorthy in favour
of Sri Venkatappa.
(f) Sale deed dated 15-06-2006 registered as Document
No.BLN-1-16426-2006-07, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND281 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, executed by Sri Venkatappa in favour of
Sri K.H. Anu.
(g) Rectification deed dated 12-07-2014 Registered as
Document No.NGB-1-01019-2014-15, Book-1, Stored in
CD No.NGBD262 registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore North, executed by Sri
Venkatappa in favour of Sri K.N. Anu.
(h) Sale deed dated 28-03-2005 Registered as Document
No.BLN-1-60872-2004-05, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND157 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, executed by Sri K.S.Moorthy in favour
of Smt. H.Lakshamma.
(i) Sale deed dated 27-07-2006 Registered as Document
No.BLN-1-24448-2006-07, Book-1, Stored in CD
No.BLND299 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore North, executed by Smt. Lakshamma in favour
of Sri G.N.Kumar."
In juxtaposition, the prayer that was sought at the time of
institution of the suit is required to be noticed. The prayer in the
suit is as follows:
"WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree:
11
(i) of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and
their henchmen, agents, representatives or any other
third parties acting for them or on behalf of them from
interfering with the physical possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule properties by the Plaintiff, in any
manner.
(ii) and to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the
above with costs, in the interest of justice and equity."
What was earlier sought was relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the physical
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the
plaintiff. What is now sought is a complete change seeking the
relief of declaration that the sale deeds pertaining to A and B
Schedule property are not binding upon the plaintiff and
consequently declare him to be the owner of the suit schedule
property. Several items in Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties
are sought to be incorporated in the prayer by way of amendment.
The averment was that it would not change the nature of the suit
and the petitioner was ready and willing to pay court fee payable by
virtue of the amendment of the plaint. The defendants put up
vehement opposition by detailed statement of objections.
12
10. The issue now would be, whether the amendment under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC must be permitted to seek the relief of
declaration that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property
and ancillary reliefs, plethora in number. The concerned Court, on
the averments in the application and the objections, rejects the
application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the following order:
".... .... ....
REASONS
7.Point No.1: The Plaintiff has filed the present suit
against the defendants for the relief of Permanent Injunction in
respect of the suit schedule property.
8. Before I proceed further it is necessary to set out the
relevant provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
"ORDER 6 Rule 17: Amendment of pleadings- The
court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party
to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such
terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be
made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining
the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court
comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial".
9. The object of the amendment is that, the court should
try the merits of the cases that come before them and should
consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for
determining the real question in controversy between the
parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the
other side. Ultimately, the courts exist for doing justice between
13
the parties and not for punishing them, and they are
empowered to grant amendments of pleadings in the larger
interest of doing full and complete justice to parties. Provisions
for the amendment of pleadings are contained to promote end
of justice and not for defeating them. Keeping these principles I
would like to discuss the facts of the present case on hand.
11. In this regard I would like to bestow upon the
Judgment reported in 2012 (119) AIC 669. Between
Minor Balakumaran Vs Gunasekaran. In this case it is
held that, prior to insertion of Proviso clause to Order 6
Rule 17 CPC, it was permissible for the Court to allow
belated amendment by compensating the other side by
awarding costs. But, pursuant to the insertion of the
Proviso, no application for amendment shall be allowed
after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to
the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party
could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial. In view of the insertion of the
Proviso, the entire object of the amendment introduced
2002 in CPC is to stall filing of Application for amending
the pleading subsequent to commencement of trial to
avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient
knowledge of other's case. In the instant case also the
plaintiff filed the application after adducing her evidence
and when the case was posted for cross examination of
P.W-1. The defendants have appeared before the court
and have filed their written statement on 06.06.2018. The
plaintiff has not filed any such application from the date
of filing the written statement and after leading the
evidence and when the case was posted for cross
examination has come up with this application. This
appears that the plaintiff was aware of the claim of the
defendants. When the plaintiff was aware of the
defendants claim what made the plaintiff to sit quiet till
2022. The plaintiff though was diligent about the
defendants claim kept quiet and has come up with this
application only with an intention to protract the
proceedings. Therefore, the above said decision squarely
applicable to the case on hand.
12. The alleged amendment sought by the plaintiff
is belated one and it will introduce the new case and it
14
will change the entire nature of the suit. If the alleged
amendment application is allowed, then the very plaint
pleadings will be changed and both the parties have to
lead fresh trial. The plaintiff has not made out ground to
allow the application. If the application is allowed it will cause
injustice to the other side. Hence, considering all these aspects,
this court in the touchstone of reasons ventilated above,
answered Points No.1 in the Negative.
13. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
I.A No.I/2022 filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17
R/w section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby rejected.”
(Emphasis added)
The Court holds that the stage at which the application is preferred
cannot be permitted, as trial had already commenced and it was in
advance stage and the concerned Court comes to conclude that the
plaintiff has sought to set up a new case which would change the
nature of the suit. On the said reasons, the amendment comes to
be rejected.
11. What is sought by the plaintiff is amendment seeking
relief of declaration declaring him to be the absolute owner and
several ancillary prayers. As observed hereinabove, the cause of
15
action for filing the suit arose on 18-11-2017. Therefore, for every
relief that he seeks, the said date would be the date for cause of
action. Initially permanent injunction is sought. By way of
amendment, the relief of declaration is now sought, 5 years after
the cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff
projects as if it is an innocuous amendment and does not change
the nature of the suit. The said submission, to say the least, is
preposterous, as it is a product of clever drafting. A suit for
declaration, is trite, should be filed within 3 years of springing of
cause of action.
12. The cause of action, in the case at hand, has sprung on
18-11-2017. The amendment now sought is in the year 2022, 5
years after the cause of action having arisen. It, therefore,
becomes necessary to notice the limitation for seeking the relief of
declaration. Article 58 of the Limitation Act deals with limitation to
file a suit for declaration. It reads as follows:
2. Definitions.–In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,–
... ... ...
(j) "period of limitation" means the period of limitation
prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the
16Schedule, and “prescribed period” means the period
of limitation computed in accordance with the
provisions of this Act;
3. Bar of limitation.–(1) Subject to the provisions
contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit
instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after
the prescribed period shall be dismissed although
limitation has not been set up as a defence.
... ... ...
SCHEDULE
... ... ...
58. To obtain any other Three When the right to sue
declaration. years first accrues."
(Emphasis supplied)
Article 58 mandates that in suits for declaration, the suit should be
instituted within 3 years from the date of arising of cause of action.
The rigour of the statute, on the face of it, is not met in the case at
hand. As stated earlier on 18-11-2017 the cause of action arose.
The amendment to the plaint sought is on 09-11-2022. The
amendment introduces a new case. If a suit for relief of declaration
is not even entertainable on the plain interpretation of Article 58, as
it is beyond the period of limitation, the amendment can hardly be
said to be justifiable. By bringing in an amendment undoubtedly,
the petitioner/plaintiff is wanting to set up a new case which he
cannot seek independently. Therefore, what cannot be done directly
17
is sought to be done indirectly by way of amendment. If the
petitioner has no right in law to institute an independent suit for
declaration, he can hardly be said to have a right to bring in relief
of declaration by projecting it as an innocuous amendment. The
amendment sought cuts at the root of the matter. The amendment
sets up a new case, undoubtedly.
13. It becomes necessary to notice the law laid down by the
Apex Court or other High Courts with regard to amendments not to
be permitted which change the nature of the suit itself. The
amendment is sought under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. It reads
as follows:
“17. Amendment of pleadings.–The Court may at any
stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his
pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and
all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the
purpose of determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall
be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the
Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18
The Apex Court has interpreted the said provision i.e., Order VI
Rule 17 CPC holding that allowing the amendment should not be
working injustice to the other side. The Apex Court in the case of
DINESH GOYAL v. SUMAN AGARWAL1, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
11. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of
the case, let us consider the law relating to the amendments of
pleadings.
11.1 The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt
a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings,
however, the same cannot be in contravention of the
statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North
Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das it
was held as under:
“16. Insofar as the principles which govern the
question of granting or disallowing amendments under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are
concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule
17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of
the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda
Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363]
which still holds the field, it was held that all
amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the
two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the
other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the
parties. Amendments should be refused only where the
other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the
pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment
would cause him an injury which could not be compensated
in costs. [Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar
Mohanlal Kalwar (1990) 1 SCC 166.]”
11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial
precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615
19
of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.7, after
considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment
of pleadings, culled out certain principles:–
(i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary
for determining the real question in controversy provided
it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other
side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of
the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of
the CPC.
(ii) In the following scenario such applications should be
ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it
does not result in injustice to the other side.
(iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the
same should be disallowed if –
(a) By the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear
admission made by the party which confers a right
on the other side.
(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred
claim, resulting in the divesting of the other
side of a valuable accrued right (in certain
situations)
(c) The amendment completely changes the
nature of the suit;
(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,
(e) By the amendment, the other side should not
lose a valid defence.
(iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are –
20
(I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach;
ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite
party can be compensated by costs.
(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material
particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional
or a new approach.
(III) The amendment should not change the cause of
action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign
to the case set up in the plaint.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that where it causes injustice to the other
side and raises a time barred claim, the amendment should be
refused.
14. The Apex Court, later, in the case of MALLAVVA v.
KALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA2, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
28. This Court in Revajeetu Builders and
Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84,
laid down some basic principles which the Court should keep in
mind while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment.
Para 63 of the said judgment reads thus:
“63. On critically analysing both the English
and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3846
21ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or
rejecting the application for amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative
for proper and effective adjudication of the
case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona
fide or mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such
prejudice to the other side which cannot be
compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to
injustice or lead to multiple litigations;
(5) whether the proposed amendment
constitutionally or fundamentally changes the
nature and character of the case; and(6) as a general rule, the Court should decline
amendments if a fresh suit on the amendment
claims would be barred by limitation on the
date of application.”
(Emphasis supplied)
29. Thus, the dictum as laid in the above
referred judgment of this Court is that the Court
should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the
amendment claims would be barred by limitation on
the date of application.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, following the judgment in the case of REVAJEETU
BUILDERS holds that, as a general rule the Court should
decline amendment if a fresh suit on the amendment claims
would be barred by limitation on the date of the application.
22
The Apex Court further amplifies and reiterates that Courts should
decline amendments if fresh suit would be barred by limitation. The
Apex Court in the case of BASAVARAJ v. INDIRA3 holds as
follows:
“…. …. …
10. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides
that no application for amendment shall be allowed after
the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could
not have raised the matter before the commencement of
trial. In the case in hand, this is not even the pleaded
case of Respondents 1 and 2 before the trial court in the
application for amendment that due diligence was there
at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed
for by way of amendment. All what was pleaded was
oversight. The same cannot be accepted as a ground to
allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of
the trial especially when admittedly the facts were in
knowledge of Respondents 1 and 2-plaintiffs.
11. The relevant paragraphs of the application seeking
amendment of the plaint are reproduced hereunder:
“2. That, due to oversight and by mistake the
plaintiff was unable to sought relief declaration of decree as
null and void and unable to pay required court fee some
unavoidable circumstances and the proposed amendment is
very essential for deciding the matter in dispute.
3. * * *
4. That, if the proposed amendment is allowed no
prejudice will be cause to the other side, on the other hand
if it is not allowed then the deponent will be put to great
loss and will also leads multiplicity of litigations. Hence it is3
(2024) 3 SCC 705
23just and proper to allow the proposed amendment to meet
the ends of justice.” (sic)
12. This Court in M. Revanna v. Anjanamma [M.
Revanna v. Anjanamma, (2019) 4 SCC 332 : (2019) 2 SCC
(Civ) 338] opined that an application for amendment may be
rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and
inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of
the suit. Order 6 Rule 17CPC prevents an application for
amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes
to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not
have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking
amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of
due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier. It is not
a matter of right. Para 7 thereof is extracted below : (SCC p. 335)
“7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a
totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges
the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order
6 Rule 17CPC virtually prevents an application for
amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion
that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.
The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to
allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on
the person who seeks an amendment after commencement
of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an
amendment could not have been sought earlier. There
cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances.
Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings
to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take
into consideration whether the application for amendment is
bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes
such prejudice to the other side which cannot be
compensated adequately in terms of money.”
(emphasis supplied)”
(Emphasis supplied)
24
15. Long before the said judgment, the Apex Court in the
case of ABDUL REHMAN v. MOHD. RULDU4, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
13. Next, we have to see whether the proposed
amendments would alter the claim/cause of action of
the plaintiffs. In view of the same, we verified the averments
in the unamended plaint. As rightly pointed out by Ms
Manmeet Arora, learned counsel for the appellants that the
entire factual matrix for the relief sought for under the
proposed amendment had already been set out in the
unamended plaint. We are satisfied that the challenge to the
voidness of those sale deeds was implicit in the factual matrix
set out in the unamended plaint and, therefore, the relief of
cancellation of sale deeds as sought by the amendment does
not change the nature of the suit as alleged. It is settled law
that if necessary factual basis for amendment is already
contained in the plaint, the relief sought on the said basis
would not change the nature of the suit. In view of the same,
the contrary view expressed by the trial court and the High
Court cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the relief
sought by way of amendment by the appellants could also be
claimed by them by way of a separate suit on the date of filing
of the application. Considering the date of the sale deeds and
the date on which the application was filed for amendment of
the plaint, we are satisfied that the reliefs claimed are not
barred in law and no prejudice should (sic would) have been
caused to Respondents 1-3 (Defendants 1-3 therein) if the
amendments were allowed and would in fact avoid multiplicity
of litigation.
… … …
18. We reiterate that all amendments which are
necessary for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy between the parties should be
allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the4
(2012) 11 SCC 341
25suit. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not
be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the
power of amendment should be exercised in the larger
interests of doing full and complete justice between the
parties.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds, that if the relief that is sought in the
application seeking amendment, can also be claimed by filing a
fresh suit, as on the date of the filing the amendment application,
such amendments, on reasons recorded therein could be allowed,
as such relief would not be barred by law. As a corollary, if an
amendment would seek to project a claim that cannot be made
even by filing a fresh suit, the amendment so sought would be
barred by law, such amendment cannot be allowed.
16. In the case at hand, Article 58 becomes a statutory bar.
The period of limitation for a suit for declaration under Article 58 is
three years. The Apex Court in the case of NIKHILA DIVYANG
MEHTA v. HITESH P.SANGHVI5, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
20. The use of the words “when the right to sue
first accrues” as mentioned in Article 58 is very relevant
and important. It categorically provides that the
5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 779
26
limitation of three years has to be counted from the date
when the right to sue first accrues.
… … …
24. There is no dispute to the fact that the
limitation for filing of the suit falls under Article 58 of the
Schedule to the Act wherein the limitation prescribed is
three years. It may be pertinent to note that the
limitation of three years is from the date when the cause
of action first arose. So, according to the plaintiff’s case, the
cause of action first arose on 04.02.2014 and, therefore, the
limitation would end on 04.02.2017. However, even if the
limitation is calculated from the date of knowledge of the Will
and/or the Codicil, it would run from the first week of
November, 2014 and would end in the first week of November,
2017. The suit admittedly was instituted on 21.11.2017; much
beyond the first week of November, 2017 and as such is
apparently barred by limitation, for which neither any defence is
required to be looked into nor any evidence in support is needed
to be adduced.
… …. …
28. The other contention that the plaintiff acquired
knowledge of the Will and Codicil in the first week of November,
2014, but that was not a complete knowledge as probably he
could read the same subsequently. In dealing with the
submission, the appellate Court distinguished between
“having knowledge” and “full knowledge” to hold that the
suit is not barred by limitation as the limitation would
reckon from the date of full knowledge. It is a complete
fallacy to make any distinction between “knowledge” and
“full knowledge”. First of all, the limitation has to run
from the date when the cause of action first accrued and
not any subsequent date for the cause of action. According
to the plaintiff himself, the cause of action for the suit had
arisen much earlier. Secondly, the plaintiff has not pleaded any
date on which he acquired complete knowledge and that such
argument is only an afterthought and appears to be a simple
creation of the first appellate Court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27
The Apex Court affirms the rejection of a plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC since the cause was barred by limitation. The
Apex Court holds that right to sue begins from the date on
which the cause of action first arose. The limitation period
cannot be calculated from the date of knowledge of the
cause of action.
17. If on the bedrock of the elucidation of law by the Apex
Court the facts of the case are noticed, what would unmistakably
emerge is, that the amendment sought cannot even be sought in a
fresh suit which would be barred by limitation qua Article 58. The
date of cause of action, in the case at hand, arose on 18-11-2017.
The amendment, as observed hereinabove, is filed beyond the
period of 5 years. An independent suit itself was barred by
limitation. Therefore, there can be no question of permitting the
amendment which seeks to indirectly bring in institution of suit for
declaration, which cannot be independently filed.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has also
contended that registered sale deeds of the years 2005 and 2006
28
are sought to be challenged in 2022. Even here the period of
limitation is three years and a fresh suit could not have been filed
challenging the sale deed of 15 years vintage. The contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff was not
aware of the sale deeds being registered, though it is by the mother
of the plaintiff. Even the said submission is noted only to be
rejected, as other causes that are projected in the alleged
innocuous amendment cannot seek to challenge sale deeds of 15
years, which ought to have been challenged within three years.
The petitioner being ignorant of registration of sale deeds is of no
avail, as a document of registration gives notice to the entire world
that such a document has been executed. This is the law laid down
by the Apex Court in the case of UMA DEVI v. ANAND KUMAR6,
in the following paragraphs:
“…. …. ….
13. A registered document provides a complete
account of a transaction to any party interested in the
property. This Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.
(2) v. State of Haryana [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.
(2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ)
351 : (2012) 169 Comp Cas 133 : (2012) 340 ITR 1] held as
under : (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15)
6
(2025) 5 SCC 198
29
“15. … ’17. … Registration of a document [when
it is required by law to be, and has been effected by a
registered instrument] [Ed. : Section 3 Explanation I
TPA, reads as follows:”S. 3 Expln. I–Where any transaction
relating to immovable property is required by law to be and
has been effected by a registered instrument, any person
acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest
in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such
instrument as from the date of registration….”(emphasis
supplied)]] gives notice to the world that such a
document has been executed.
18. Registration provides safety and security to
transactions relating to immovable property, even if
the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity
and public exposure to documents thereby preventing
forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and
execution of documents. Registration provides
information to people who may deal with a property,
as to the nature and extent of the rights which
persons may have, affecting that property. In other
words, it enables people to find out whether any
particular property with which they are concerned,
has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability
and who is or are the person(s) presently having
right, title, and interest in the property. It gives
solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which
are of legal importance or relevance by recording
them, where people may see the record and enquire
and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as
land is concerned what obligations exist with regard
to them. It ensures that every person dealing with
immovable property can rely with confidence upon
the statements contained in the registers (maintained
under the said Act) as a full and complete account of
all transactions by which the title to the property may
be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.’
[Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.
(1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363, pp. 367-
68, paras 17-18.] “
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely
be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice
of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from
the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of
them being registered documents. In the lifetime of
30Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged,
neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the
year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law.
The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on
them for 45 years.
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-
defendants, Mr Sundaram, relied upon the decision of this
Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Chhatrapati
UdayanRajePratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle [Shri Mukund Bhavan
Trust v. Chhatrapati UdayanRajePratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle,
(2024) 15 SCC 675 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844] to
substantiate the contention that the suit was barred by
limitation. It was observed as follows : (SCC paras 22 & 25)“22. When a portion of the property has been
conveyed by court auction and registered in the first
instance and when another portion has been
conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a
constructive notice from the date of registration and
the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of
Property Act, comes into operation. The possession,
in the present case, also has been rested with the
appellant before several decades, which operates as
notice of title. …
23.-24. ***
25. Continuing further with the plea of limitation, the
Courts below have held that the question of the suit being
barred by limitation can be decided at the time of trial as
the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and
facts. Though the question of limitation generally is mixed
question of law and facts, when upon meaningful reading of
the plaint, the court can come to a conclusion that under
the given circumstances, after dissecting the vices of clever
drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, the suit is
hopelessly barred and the plaint can be rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11.”
(Emphasis supplied)
31
The Apex Court holds that once a document is registered, it gives
notice to all and sundry that a document has been executed
particularly between the members of the families of the respective
parties to the document. The property and the transaction cannot
be said to be unknown to the plaintiff, as the defendants are not
strangers to the transaction nor the family of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff is deemed to have had knowledge of the
registered sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants. The
amendment for cancellation of sale deeds or rectification deeds that
have happened 15 years ago is also a clever ploy to get over
limitation. If the suit for declaration and suit challenging the sale
deeds are to be preferred within 3 years in terms of law and
anything preferred beyond the said date being liable for rejection,
cannot be sought by way of amendment, that too after 5 years and
15 years respectively.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
The cause of action as pleaded arose on 18-11-2017.
The application for amendment is filed on 09-11-2022.
32
The statutory prescription under Article 58 is clear: a
declaration suit must be brought within 3 years from
accrual of cause of action.
The amendment seeks to breathe life into a claim long
extinguished by law.
What is thus impermissible directly cannot be
permitted obliquely through amendment.
To permit the amendment would amount to reopening
of pleadings, issues and evidence – a course fraught
with procedural prejudice.
The amendment sought is neither just nor timely nor
tenable, it is an attempt to resurrect a claim that law
no longer recognizes and to rescript a suit whose
original frame was never conceived of such declaratory
relief.
The concerned Court in rejecting the amendment has not
erred in law or exercised discretion perversely. On the
33contrary, the order is in harmonious accord with binding
precedent and foundational tenets of civil procedure and
therefore, would not warrant any interference at the hands
of this Court.
19. The petition thus stands rejected.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:SS