JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 27/1/2023 passed in O.S. No. 57/2012 by the Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaghatagi, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that the respondent No.1/ plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit O.S. No. 57/2012 for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, initially respondents No.2 to 7 were arrayed as defendants and the suit having been partly decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 04. 07.2018, the respondents/ defendants preferred an appeal which was allowed by the first appellate Court and the matter remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh vide judgment dtd. 26/1/2021 passed in R.A. No. 176/2018. Subsequent to remand, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating certain events that had transpired during the pendency of the suit including pleadings and prayer in relation to the registered sale deed dtd. 7/3/2022 executed in favour of the petitioner herein subsequently arrayed as defendant No.1. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner herein, the trial Court proceed to allow the same by holding as under: "Applicant/plaintiff has filed this application praying for permission to amend the plaint as per the proposed amendment. 2. Application is supported by the affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff wherein it is contended that he has filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of land Sy.No.41/2 on the basis of the agreement for sale. During the pendency of the proceedings the defendants have illegally alienated the suit property in favour of Fakkirappa S/o Karabasappa Chatni through registered sale deed dtd.: 7/3/2022, the defendants only in order to cause harassment and to dupe the hard earnest money paid by the plaintiff have created illegal transaction and sale deed in favour of FakkirappaS/o Karabasappa Chatni, the purchaser is arrayed as defendant No.8, so it is necessary to set up the pleading in respect of the sale deed in his favour and prayer to that effect in the plaint. The proposed amendment will neither change the nature of suit nor affect the cause of action. If the proposed amendment is not allowed plaintiff will be put to untold hardship and irreparable loss and it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings may likely to be arose, on the contrary no loss or injustice will be caused to the defendants if the application is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for defendant No.8 has filed objections denying the application and contents of the affidavit as false. It is contended that this case was remanded by the Hon'ble appellate court for limited purpose and the plaintiff cannot enlarge the same by filing vexatious applications, plaintiff has not sought for any relief of permanent injunction against the vendors of defendant No.8 as such he cannot seek such relief against this defendant and it is barred by order 2 rule 2 CPC. It is further contended that this case was remanded for the purpose of ascertaining the genuineness of the signatures of the defendants No.1 to 7 in the alleged sale agreements dtd. 20/11/2011 and 13/12/2010 and passing ofRs.6, 000/-, however the plaintiff without limiting his scope of issue No.2 and 3 has filed frivolous application which is not maintainable. It is further contended that the plaintiff through the present application is introducing new cause of action and also seeking the relief of declaration, which will change the nature and colour of the case from specific performance of contract. It is further contended that plaintiff had accepted the dismissal of suit for specific performance of contract and had also filed execution petition No.15/2018 for recovery of Rs.6, 00, 000.00, however it was dismissed on 7/1/2019 and one more execution petition No.6/2019 was filed for recovery of Rs.6, 00, 000.00as order by this court, now the plaintiff intending to conduct the suit of afresh which is against the law and justice. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Heard the arguments. Learned counsel for defendant No.8 has relied upon Judgment reported in 1978 SCC OnLine KAR195: AIR 1979 KAR 40 . 5. The following points arise for my consideration as under: 1. Whether the applicant/plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application filed U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC? 2. What order? 6. 4. Heard the arguments. Learned counsel for defendant No.8 has relied upon Judgment reported in 1978 SCC OnLine KAR195: AIR 1979 KAR 40 . 5. The following points arise for my consideration as under: 1. Whether the applicant/plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application filed U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC? 2. What order? 6. My findings on the above points are: POINT No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative POINT No.2 : As per the final order for the following: R E A S O N S 7. POINT No.1: Applicant/plaintiff has prayed for permitting him to amend the plaint as per the proposed amendment. It is his contended that during the pendency of the proceeding defendants No.1 to 7have created false sale deed in favour of the defendantNo.8, the said purchaser though impleaded as defendant but there is no pleading in respect of the transaction /sale deed made in his favour as such it is necessary to amend the pleading and prayer in the plaint. 8. Per contra, the defendant No.8 has opposed the application on the ground that first of all the present suit has been remanded back by the Hon'ble appellate court only ascertain the genuineness of the suit sale agreements and passing of consideration, then there was no any prayer for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 to 7 i.e., vendors of the defendant No.8 as such now the plaintiff cannot seek such relief against the purchaser, further if the amendment is allowed it will change the nature of the suit and cause of action. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued with force that though the plaintiff has filed execution petition but when the matter was remanded he has withdrawn the execution petition, Hon'ble appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by this court as such the case has to be decided afresh. It is further argued that when the defendant No.1 to 7 have alienated the property during the pendency of this proceedings and purchase has been impleaded as a defendant, it is the further development during the pendency of the suit and it has to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff as such proposed amendment is very much necessary. It is further argued that when the defendant No.1 to 7 have alienated the property during the pendency of this proceedings and purchase has been impleaded as a defendant, it is the further development during the pendency of the suit and it has to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff as such proposed amendment is very much necessary. It is further argued that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property but the defendant No.8 is trying to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff by virtue of the alleged sale deed as such it is necessary to seek for declaration with regard to sale deed in favour of the defendant No.8 and relief of permanent injunction. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendantNo.8 has vehemently argued that the case is remanded by the Hon'ble appellate court only for limited purpose, the plaintiff accepting the earlier judgment had filed execution petitions for recovery of earnest money, apart from this the plaintiff has not challenged the earlier judgment and decree. It is further argued that no suit was pending when the defendant No.8 has purchased the property as such the sale deed is not hit by lis-pendence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for defendant No.8 has relied upon Judgment reported in1978 SCC OnLine KAR 195: AIR 1979 KAR 40 , Hon'ble Karnataka High Court between K.Veerabasappa Vs The Court of District Judge at Chitradurga and others case, wherein it is Issues decided in favour of appellant, not having been challenged by respondent, held, cannot be readjudicated by appellate Court. 11. I have gone through the application, objection and material on record carefully. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of Specific Performance of Contract based on the alleged sale agreement. Earlier suit was disposed by dismissing the suit for the relief of Specific Performance and decreed for refund of earnest money. Then the defendants No.1 to 7 challenged the Judgment and Decree in RANo.176/2018, wherein Hon'ble Appellate Court was pleased to allow the appeal on 26/11/2021 by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court and remanded back the suit by recasting Issues No.2 and 3 and also directed to send the Ex.P-1 to 5 to hand writing expert for verification, comparison of signatures of defendants No.1, 2, 5 and 6. 12. 12. After remand of the case by the Hon'ble Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed application U/o I rule 10(2) CPC contending that original defendants have sold the suit property and purchaser has to be impleaded. Accordingly for notice has been issued to proposed defendant and then application has been allowed and purchaser has been impleaded as defendant No.8. The defendant No.8 has appeared and filed written statement and additional issue also framed, plaintiff /PW-1 has been examined further and the matter has been posted for defendants' evidence. At this stage the plaintiff has come up with application praying for permission to amendment the plaint as per the proposed amendment. 13. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendant No.8 it is true that the plaintiff did not challenge the earlier Judgment and Decree passed in this case. Further on going though the document produced by the defendant No.8 it could be seen that the plaintiff accepting the earlier relief of refund of earnest money granted by the Court in this case had filed Execution petitions in Ex.P.No.15/2018 and Ex.P.No.6/2019. Further it is not in dispute that matter has been remanded for the Hon'ble AppellateCourt with certain directions. 14. As per the provisions of order 6 Rule 17 CPC no application for amendment is to be allowed after the trial is commenced, unless Court comes to conclusion that inspite of due diligence, parties could not raise the matter before commencement of trail. Further it is settled principle of law that the amendment cannot be allowed if it affects the cause of action and change the nature of the suit. In this case already trial is commenced but the defendant No.8 is impleaded as he has purchased the suit property. The plaintiff has filed amendment application to narrate the facts about subsequent developments in respect of the suit property. 15. The plaintiff filed the amendment application to amend the pleading and also sought for permission to set up two prayers by way of amendment i.e., to declare that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.8 dtd.:7/3/2022 is illegal and void abinitio and not binding on the plaintiff and one prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.8 from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit property. If the amendment in the prayer is allowed definitely nature of the suit will be changed. If the amendment in the prayer is allowed definitely nature of the suit will be changed. Further as rightly contended by the defendant No.8, the plaintiff has not sought for the relief of permanent injunction against original defendants No.1 to 7. It shows that the plaintiff is intending to introduce new prayer, so, such amendment cannot be allowed. 16. So far as prayer of the plaintiff as per proposed amendment with regard to declaration is concerned, the pleading itself is sufficient, admittedly plaintiff is not party to the alleged sale deed as such it is not binding on him, so, specific prayer to that effect is not necessary. Further another prayer with regard to permanent injunction is concerned, there was no such prayer earlier, if the plaintiff is permitted to amendment the prayer column and to set up additions prayers as sought for, it will change the nature of suit. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is just and proper to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint with regard to adding of para 6(a) is to be allowed and the plaintiff has not made out sufficient grounds to allow the remaining amendments. Hence, I answer the Point No.1 partly in the Affirmative. 17. POINT No.2: As discussed above, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Application filed by the Applicant/ plaintiff U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC is partly allowed. Plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint and to add the para No.6(a) as per the proposed amendment. Prayer of the plaintiff with regard to amendment for adding of other paras as pert he proposed amendment is hereby rejected. No order as to cost." 4. A perusal of the impugned order and the material on record will clearly indicate that by way of proposed amendment, all that the respondent No.1-plaintiff seeks to introduce is, certain subsequent events and prayer in relation to the petitioner who is none other that the lis pendens purchaser of the suit schedule immovable property during the pendency of the suit and consequently the proposed amendment being in the nature of subsequent events, cannot be said to change or alter nature or character of the suit nor its cause of action. 5. 5. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhyesham Vs. Chhabinath (2015) 5 SCC 423 . Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner is entitled to file written statement taking up all defences including the defence of maintainability, limitation, etc. which will be decided by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit.