- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3822 WP No. 8285 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8285 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA D/O LATE DYAVAPPA, W/O SRI. BASAPPA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS 1(A). SRI. PRAKASH, S/O LATE BASAPPA @ MANIYAPPA. 1(B). SMT. TULASI, D/O LATE BASAPPA @ MANIYAPPA. W/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 1(C). SMT. GEETHA, D/O LATE BASAPPA @ MANIYAPPA. W/O SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.64, 4TH MAIN, SANTRUPTHI NAGAR, SUN CITY LAYOUT, KOTHNUR MAIN ROAD, (GOWRI SHANKARA TEMPLE) BANGALORE - 560 078. 2. SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE DYAVAPPA Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3822 WP No. 8285 of 2019 W/O SRI. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT ABBAYYA REDDY LAYOUT J.P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MURALI B.S, ADVOCATE AND ALSO FOR LR'S OF P1) AND: 1. SRI. RAJANNA @ NYNAPPA, S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. SRI. SIDDARAJU S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 5. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 6. SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3822 WP No. 8285 of 2019 7. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI - 562 122, HOSAKOTE TALUQ, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 8. SRI. DEVARAJU S/O LATE DYAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT BARODA BANK COLONY, J.P. NAGAR 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078. 9. SRI. SUGNANA MURTHY, S/O LATE DYAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT URATA AGRAHARA SANTEKALLAHALLI POST - 563 128 KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 10. SRI. SURESH S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA GRANDSON OF BODAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 11. SRI. RAJU S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA GRANDSON OF BODAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 12. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3822 WP No. 8285 of 2019 GRANDSON OF BODAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 13. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF BODAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 14. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE DEVARAJ DAUGHTER IN LAW OF BODAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 15. SRI. SIDDARAJU S/O LATE BODAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 15 ARE R/AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI - 562 122, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7; SRI. A. SOMARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R13 AND R15; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.09.2023, NOTICE TO R8, R9 AND R14 DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C AT HOSAKOTE, ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC DATED 18.06.2018 IN O.S.NO.429/2013, VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC., - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3822 WP No. 8285 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC dated 04.01.2019 in O.S.No.429/2013 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hoskote, the defendants are before this Court. 2. Originally the suit is filed seeking the relief of declaration that the compromise decree in O.S.No.203/2006 dated 23.12.2006 is not binding on the plaintiffs and also sought for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Partition Deed dated 21.03.1968. Initially one application is filed seeking amendment of the plaint and that came to be allowed. Thereafter, the issues were framed. Another application is filed seeking amendment of the plaint and it is the case of the plaintiffs that the father had purchased the property in the year 1970 and now they are seeking a declaration that they are the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3822 WP No. 8285 of 2019 owners of the property based on the said sale deed. The trial Court by order impugned had allowed the application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the trial Court without considering the application and objections that are raised by the defendants, had allowed the application. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the reasoning, where the trial Court has observed that the plaintiffs praying to add some more facts and prayer in the suit. Defendant Nos.1 & 2 denied the said facts. Hence, proposed amendment appears to be necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy between the parties and had allowed the application. He submits the order is bereft of reasons and needs to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the trial Court had rightly considered that the application is not filed at a belated stage and the Court exercised the discretion and allowed the application and there are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3822 WP No. 8285 of 2019 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The suit is filed for declaration based on a Partition Deed and also a declaration that a compromise decree is not binding on them. There are two applications an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed initially was allowed and the second application is filed now under Order VII Rule 17 and already the issues were framed and the trial has already commenced. Once an application is filed after commencement of the trial, the party who is filing the application seeking amendment shall question and prove that in spite of due diligence all these facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court and the Court has to consider the same and pass an appropriate orders. The order impugned reveals that the Court has not done any exercise of that nature and mechanically allowed this application which cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The order impugned dated 04.01.2019 passed on application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3822 WP No. 8285 of 2019 O.S.No.429/2013 is set aside and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court. (ii) The trial Court shall decide the application within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, basing on the material available on record. (iii) Any observations that are made by this Court while disposing of this Writ Petition, the Court below shall not construe it as an expression of this Court on the merits of the matter and the Court below shall independently decide the case uninfluenced by any of the observations made for deciding this application. (iv) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (v) All IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK