- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3041 WP No. 200958 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.200958 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: ASHOK S/O VISHWANTH KAMARADDI. AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: OLD STATE BANK ROAD, MANUR COMPLEX, SINDAGI, TQ: SINDAGI. DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUTTUKUMAR S/O DUNDAPPAGOUDA DODAMANI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SINDAGI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST : VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. 2. SMT.PARVATI W/O DUNDAPPAGOUDA DODAMANI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SINDAGI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST : VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. 3. SHANKARGOUDA S/O DUNDAPPAGOUDA DODAMANI, AGE: 54 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3041 WP No. 200958 of 2025 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AHERI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. 4. SMT. SAVITRI W/O SHARANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AHERI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. 5. SMT. KALAVATHI W/O DUNDAPPAGOUDA DODAMANI. AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SINDAGI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. 6. SMT. BHAGYASHREE W/O BASALINGAPPA ADAGAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MORATAGI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 123. 7. SMT.PADMAJA W/O SHARANAPPA METRI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DEVARANAVADAGI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 206. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 187/2016 IN I.A.NO. 18 FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 9 OF CPC FOR PERMIT TO THE PETITIONER TO FILING THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT. BEFORE ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDAGI AT SINDAGI VIDE PRODUCED AND MARKED AS AT ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3041 WP No. 200958 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 11.02.2025 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi, in O.S.no.187/2016 on IA.no.18 filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC at Annexure-G, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was defendant no.7 in suit for partition filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff. It was submitted that suit was initially filed in respect of properties mentioned in schedule. But by filing application, plaintiff got amended plaint (as per order dated 01.12.2021) to include some more properties. It was submitted though defendant no.8 filed additional written statement, petitioner had not filed same. He realized omission only when matter was listed for arguments. Immediately, he filed IA.no.18 under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Though petitioner had made out a clear case for consideration, under impugned order, learned trial Judge rejected same without proper consideration. It was submitted observation by learned trial Judge that application was filed after three years would not be justified since it was due to apparent oversight by petitioner/defendant no.7. It was further submitted since it was suit for partition, plaintiff was required by law to include all joint family - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3041 WP No. 200958 of 2025 properties and omission would be fatal to suit. Therefore, sought for allowing writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and writ petition records. 4. On perusal, it is seen after allowing application for amendment for inclusion of additional properties, defendants would be entitled to file additional written statement. However, plaintiff’s application was allowed in year 2021. Though, defendant no.8 had filed additional written statement, petitioner did not file it due to oversight. In meanwhile, suit progressed to trial. Plaintiff concluded recording his evidence. Defendants have cross-examined plaintiff. Thereafter, defendants led evidence and on conclusion of trial, suit had progressed to stage of arguments. 5. Perusal of affidavit filed in support of IA.no.18, reveals defendant no.7 admitted delay in filing application, but claimed it was not abnormal and omission to file additional written statement was sought to be explained as due to inadvertence. Under impugned order, learned trial Judge is seen to have adverted to averments, reasons assigned for rejection of application, are not only delay in filing application but also due to fact that defendant no.7 had duly participated in trial and therefore explanation about omission being - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3041 WP No. 200958 of 2025 due to inadvertence was disbelieved. It was also stated that allowing of application filed belated would unnecessarily prolong suit. Application filed at stage of arguments would be suspect of being with sole intention of dilating proceedings. Learned trial Judge has duly applied his mind and passed reasoned order. I do not find any reasons to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35 Ct;Vk