WP/52993/2019 of CHIKKABYRAPPA @ MUNIBAIRAPPA Vs KARIYAPPA on 25 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.36/2006 on I.A.No.16, whereby the application filed by the defendants seeking amendment of the written statement came to be allowed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the impugned order and the material on record.

3. The petitioners, who are plaintiff Nos.1(a) and 1(b) before the Trial Court, had themselves filed I.A.No.14 seeking amendment of the plaint. The defendants, in turn, filed I.A.No.16 seeking amendment of their written statement. The proposed amendments were primarily intended to rectify certain typographical errors and to incorporate an additional plea regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-inclusion of all the properties. The defendants also sought to

Verified

HC-KAR

introduce a specific plea with regard to the Gift Deed dated 02.04.1964 allegedly executed by Muninanjamma in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Sy.No.37/3. In addition thereto, the defendants sought to plead that the plaintiff had impersonated one Muni Bairappa and had thereafter procured transfer of the khata in respect of Sy.No.37/3, culminating in execution of a Gift Deed dated 25.03.2016 in favour of plaintiff No.1(a).

4. The aforesaid amendments were sought at a stage when the suit had been posted for cross- examination of the plaintiffs. It is no doubt true that an application seeking amendment of the plaint, particularly after commencement of trial, has to satisfy the parameters governing amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the same degree of scrutiny cannot be mechanically applied while considering an application filed by a defendant seeking amendment of the written statement. It is well settled that

Verified

HC-KAR

a defendant is entitled to take inconsistent or even mutually inconsistent pleas in the written statement, provided such pleas do not result in causing prejudice to the plaintiff or completely displacing the nature and character of the defence.

5. In the present case, it is significant to note that the Trial Court, by the very same order passed on I.A.Nos.14 and 16, has permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as well as permitted the defendants to amend the written statement. Having regard to the nature of the proposed amendment and the stage at which the same has been permitted, this Court is of the view that the amendment to the written statement does not have the effect of displacing or altering the foundational case of the plaintiffs. The additional plea sought to be introduced by insertion of paragraph 11(b) is essentially a matter of defence, and the burden of establishing the same continues to rest upon the defendants.

Verified

HC-KAR

6. Merely because an additional plea has been permitted to be incorporated in the written statement, the same does not amount to acceptance of the truth or correctness of such plea. The plaintiffs would have a full opportunity to controvert the additional defence by filing an appropriate rejoinder and by adducing necessary evidence. In such circumstances, permitting the defendants to incorporate paragraph 11(b) does not, in the considered opinion of this Court, cause any prejudice to the petitioners.

7. It is also made clear that the allegations incorporated in paragraph 11(a), particularly those relating to the Gift Deed dated 02.04.1964, alleged impersonation, transfer of khata and the subsequent Gift Deed dated 25.03.2016, are matters which the defendants are required to establish by cogent and acceptable evidence. The burden of proving these assertions continues to remain upon the defendants, and the amendment

Verified

HC-KAR

permitted by the Trial Court shall not be construed as recording any finding on the merits of such allegations.

8. The petitioners are, therefore, at liberty to file a rejoinder to the additional pleas incorporated in the written statement and contest the same on merits. The Trial Court shall consider all such pleas and the evidence adduced by the respective parties independently and uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No.16 warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

The petitioners are at liberty to file their rejoinder to the amended written statement, if not already filed.

Verified

HC-KAR

All contentions of the parties on the merits of the suit are kept open.

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Verified