- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12473 WP No. 11385 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 11385 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. YOGANANDA MURTHY S/O LATE APTEL SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT KEBBEPURA VILLAGE HANGALA, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT-571 111. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. BASAPPA S/O B.N.VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT KEBBEPURA VILLAGE HANGALA, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT-571 111 2. SRI. RANAMMA @ NIRMAL D/O L. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. SMT. REVAMMA D/O L. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12473 WP No. 11385 of 2019 4. SRI. MAHADEV PRASAD S/O L. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. SMT. MAHESHAMMA D/O L. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 6. SMT. UMA D/O L. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 7. SMT. SHIVAMMA D/O L.VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 8. SRI. K. NATARAJU S/O KENGALAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 9. SMT. SUBBAMMA D/O KENGALAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 10. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O KENGALAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KEBBEPURA VILLAGE HANGALA, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT-571 111. …RESPONDENTS (R1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 NOTICE TO R2, 3, 5, 6, 9 AND 10 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12473 WP No. 11385 of 2019 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.02.2019, ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.75/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT GUNDLUPET, VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.4 dated 02.02.2019 in O.S.No.75/2013 by Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet, the present writ petition is filed by defendant No.2 therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. O.S.No.75/2013 is a suit for partition filed in the year 2013. All the parties belong to the same family. Defendant No.2/petitioner herein filed his written - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12473 WP No. 11385 of 2019 statement on 19.07.2013. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed and the trial has commenced. When the matter was posted for defendant's evidence, defendant No.2/petitioner herein preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to amend the written statement and sought to introduce new facts to the effect that there was an earlier partition, the suit is barred by limitation as the earlier partition was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and that defendant No.2/petitioner herein is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. On the ground that the said application is filed only with a view to protract the proceedings and is not supported by relevant materials, the trial Court has rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of defendant No.2/petitioner herein is that trial Court erred in dismissing the amendment application filed by him and that he has a right to amend the written statement as and when he wants. It is further submitted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12473 WP No. 11385 of 2019 that amendment is a necessity to meet the ends of justice. It is also submitted that due to paucity of time, written statement was filed in a hurried manner, because of which all the necessary particulars could not be mentioned in the said written statement and allowing the application as prayed for would only meet the ends of justice and no harm would be caused to any person and the trial Court by ignoring this particular fact has rejected the application. 5. In spite of service of notice, respondents in the present writ petition have remained absent. 6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by defendant No.2/petitioner herein. 7. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC reads as under: "17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12473 WP No. 11385 of 2019 Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 8. The aforementioned provision makes it clear that a party concerned can prefer application to amend his pleadings at any time but if it is filed after the trial has commenced unless the person seeking amendment is able to prove that in spite of his due diligence he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, he is not entitled to seek the amendment. 9. Admittedly, the written statement has been filed by defendant No.2/petitioner herein way back in the year 2013 and the application to amend the same has been filed in the year 2018. The amendment sought pertains to introducing facts regarding the partition which is said to have been taken place long before filing of the original suit. The affidavit filed by defendant No.2/petitioner herein before the trial Court in support of his application as to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12473 WP No. 11385 of 2019 why the amendment has to be allowed, is bald and it does not answer the question whether in spite of his due diligence defendant No.2/petitioner herein was not in a position to take the said pleas in the written statement. As the written statement was filed way back in the year 2013 and the amendment application is filed in the year 2018, the only reasoning given by him is that written statement was filed in a hurried manner and because of which pleadings sought to be introduced by way of amendment could not be originally pleaded and hence, it warranted amendment application to be filed cannot be believed. Defendant No.2/petitioner herein has taken nearly five years to make amendment application. 10. As there has been no adequate reasons given by defendant No.2/petitioner herein, as required in law, the trial Court has rightly rejected the amendment application filed by him. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12473 WP No. 11385 of 2019 11. For the aforesaid reasons, it is not a fit case to interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial Court and hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8