MAHESH BABU Vs. C.R. CHANNABASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 8/3/2021 passed on I.A.No.XXI filed in O.S.No.3555/2007 by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-56) (for short, 'the Trial Court').

(2.) Sri.Sampath A., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs have filed a suit against the respondents for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and further relief to declare that the decree in O.S.No.6713/2003 and the sale deed dtd. 23/3/2007 were not binding on them. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to bring the subsequent events on record. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the amendment sought is not connected to the controversy involved in the suit and as on the date of filing of the written statement, the defendants have disputed the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and the prayer sought in the amendment application is a distinct cause of action and the remedy lies elsewhere. It is submitted that the defendants filed a suit against the tenants of the plaintiffs which was decreed and thereafter, in an execution proceeding, they got the possession of the suit schedule property which compelled the petitioners to file an application seeking for the amendment of the pleading and an additional relief of possession which is a consequential relief to the main relief. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of SHRI MOHAMMADRAFI AND ANOTHER Vs. BANDENAWAZ AND OTHERS,W.P.No.108512/2025 dt. 16/12/25. and seeks to allow the petition.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the application is filed for amendment after the commencement of the trial and without any due diligence. It is submitted that PW-1 in the cross-examination has admitted that the defendants have taken possession in the year 2005 and if that is so, the amendment sought as well as the prayer for possession are beyond the period of limitation. It is further submitted that the tenants of the ground floor have handed over the possession to the defendant No.1 and insofar as the tenants of the first floor, the defendants entered into an agreement with them and for the breach of such agreement, they filed a suit for ejectment which came to be decreed. All these facts were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court rightly declined to entertain the application for amendment. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PANDIT MALHARI MAHALE Vs. MONIKA PANDIT MAHALE AND OTHERS,(2020) 11 SCC 549. M REVANNA Vs. ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS,(2019) 4 SCC 332. AND SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. GORAN Vs. JAGAN DEVI AND ORS.,(2025) LIVELAW (SC) 900. and seeks to dismiss the writ petition.