Karnataka High Court
WP/28934/2026 of SRI MAHESH KUMAR M J Vs SMT YALINI MANOHARAN on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010576252026 NC: 2026:KHC:52172 WP No. 28934 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 28934 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHESHKUMAR M.J., S/O. M. L.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28934 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI MAHESHKUMAR M.J.,
S/O. M. L. JAYALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.3159, 3RD CROSS,
GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 056.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMARANATHAN A.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. YALINI MANOHARAN
W/O SRI. P MANOHARAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1108, SOUTH PEKING MIT ALLEN,
TEXAS - 78501, USA
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
KARTHIKEYAN A.S.,
S/O. SUBRAMANIAM A.P.,
AGED ABOUT 45, R/A NO.39,
1ST A CROSS, ANUBHAVNAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 072.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7/8/2026 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-29) BENGALURU IN O S NO.26501/2022 ANNX-A AND
ETC,.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 07.08.2026 passed on I.A.No.1/2026, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint has been allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amendment, having been permitted after commencement of recording of evidence and, that too, after certain admissions were elicited in cross-examination, is impermissible.
HC-KAR
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that, in view of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, even an amendment sought on the ground of a typographical error cannot be permitted after commencement of the trial, particularly when such amendment has the effect of diluting the admissions elicited in cross- examination.
4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Upon perusal of the nature of the amendment sought, it is evident that the amendment is confined to the number of sites and the name of the vendor. Originally, the plaint referred to 11 sites and the name of the vendor as N.R. Nagaraj. The same is now sought to be amended to refer to 5 sites and the name of the vendor as J. Gopal.
6. As rightly held by the trial Court, the proposed amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor introduces a new cause of action. The amendment is necessary for the comprehensive adjudication of the dispute and also to
HC-KAR
avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24