- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1625 WP No. 206341 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.206341 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE MONAPPA AGE:35 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KOTGARWADI, YADGIRI, TQ & DIST:YADGIR. 2. NINGAPPA S/O LATE MONAPPA AGE:30 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KOTGARWADI, YADGIRI, TQ & DIST:YADGIR. 3. HANMANTHA S/O LATE MONAPPA AGE:28 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KOTGARWADI, YADGIRI, TQ & DIST:YADGIR. 4. MAREAPPA W/O LATE MONAPPA AGE:26 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KOTGARWADI, YADGIRI, TQ & DIST:YADGIR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIKRAM VIJAYAKUMAR ,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1625 WP No. 206341 of 2015 AND: 1. BHIMBAI W/O MAREAPPA AGE:55 YRS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE R/O TQ.& DIST:YADGIR NOW RESIDING AT SHAHABAD TOWN, TQ. CHITTAPUR DIST:KALABURAGI-585103 2. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE MONAPPA AGE:60 YRS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD R/O KOTGARWADI, YADGIRI TQ.& DIST:YADGIR-585401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. V. DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED ON I.A.NO. V IN O.S.NO- 205/2012, DATED 06.11.2015 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE YADGIR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1625 WP No. 206341 of 2015 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This Writ Petition is filed seeking prayer to quash the order dated 06.11.2015, passed on IA.No.V in O.S.No.205/2012 by the Civil Judge, Yadgir. 2. Sri. Vikram Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting an application filed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 seeking amendment of written statement. It is submitted that there were typographical mistakes and by oversight the proposed amendments were not incorporated in the written statement filed by them and they are essential to establish their defence and to decide the case. It is further submitted that the trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that the application is filed after a lapse of one year eight months from the date of filing of the written statement. It is also submitted that if the application for amendment is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1625 WP No. 206341 of 2015 rejected, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 to 5. 3. Per Contra, Sri.S.V.Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the application for amendment of written statement was filed after the commencement of trial only with an intention to delay the proceedings before the trial Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent No.1 herein filed suit in O.S.No.205/2012 seeking prayer for partition and separate possession of land bearing Sy.No.16/2 measuring 2 acres 4½ guntas situated at M.Hosalli village, of Yadgir Taluk. The petitioners have filed detailed written statement on 26.03.2013 denying the averments made in the plaint. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1625 WP No. 206341 of 2015 The petitioners have filed an application in IA.No.V under Order VI Rule 17 seeking prayer to amend the written statement. The proposed amendment reads as under; “PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1. At para No.1 of the Written Statement after underlines words. The suit of the plaintiff is the word not may be added. 2. After complete para No.2 to the Written Statement the under shown sentence the plaintiff was residing at Purna (Maharastra State), but the plaintiff is not residing as stated in cause title of the plaint. Are may be added. 3. At para No.5 of the Written Statement in 24th line after underline wards owned and possessed the suit property still today the word with may be deleted and the words without may be added. 4. In further plea of written statement in family pedigree at the stage of Bhimbai the words R/o: Purna (M.H) may be added.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1625 WP No. 206341 of 2015 6. The aforesaid proposed amendment would not change the stand taken by the defendant in the suit. The trial Court rejected the application for seeking amendment of the written statement only on the ground of delay. It is trite law, that the object of Order VI Rule 17 is to allow either party to alter or amend their pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. The Courts while deciding an application for amendment of pleading should not adopt a hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should the general rule especially when no prejudice is caused to the opposite side. In the case on hand, the proposed amendment would not alter the defence of the defendants. Hence, in my considered view, the application in IA.No.V needs to be allowed. I have also taken note of the fact that the proceedings in O.S.No.205/2012 are stayed vide Order dated 16.12.2015 and no purpose would be served if the application is rejected. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1625 WP No. 206341 of 2015 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The impugned order dated 06.11.2015 passed on IA.No.5 in O.S.No.205/2012 by the Civil Judge, Yadgir is set aside. Consequently, IA.No.V filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 to 5 is allowed. The defendant Nos.2 to 5 shall file the amended written statement within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Registry is directed to forward the copy of the order to the trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MSR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14 CT:SI