- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9238 WP No. 5327 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5327 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS AMMULU DEVI S W/O LATE K SRINIVASALU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO 1030/C, 1ST FLOOR 17TH D CROSS, B M 2ND STAGE INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560038. 2. MS ROHINI S D/O LATE K SRINIVASALU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NRI (IRELAND) ADDRESS NA R/AT NO 1030/C, 1ST FLOOR 17TH D CROSS, B M 2ND STAGE INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 3. MS YASHASVI S D/O LATE K SRINIVASALU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO 1030/C, 1ST FLOOR 17TH D CROSS, B M 2ND STAGE INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560038 PETITIONERS NO.2 & 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MRS AMMULU DEVI S PETITIONER NO 1. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9238 WP No. 5327 of 2025 AND: 1. MR JEGANNATHAN S/O LATE K KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT NO 1030-C, GROUND FLOOR 17TH D CROSS, B M 2ND STAGE INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560038. 2. MRS R SHARADA W/O LATE K RANGARAJAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO 25, 6TH CROSS AKSHAYANAGAR, I BLOCK RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560016 REP. BY ITS SPA HOLDER MR R RAGHAVENDRA. 3. MR R RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE K RANGARAJAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO 64,FIRST FLOOR 6TH CROSS, NEAR SEA COLLEGE OPP TO RAMANNA HOTEL MUNESHWARA LAYOUT KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE-560036. 4. MRS R VASUMATHI D/O LATE K RANGARAJAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO 25, 6TH CROSS AKSHAYA NAGAR, I BLOCK RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BANGALORE-560016 REP. BY ITS SPA HOLDER MR R RAGHAVEDNRA. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9238 WP No. 5327 of 2025 5. MRS. K VASANTHA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.121/7, GROUND FLOOR INDIRA BHAVANAM, SAKTHINAGAR THENKASI, TAMIL NADU-627 811 REP. BY HER SPA HOLDER V UDAYKUMAR P PRESENTLY CAMPING AT BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNITHA H SINGH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED: 04.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH 25) AT BANGALORE ON IA NO.4 IN O.S. 6783/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE SAME VIDE (ANNEXURE- A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on IA No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.6783/2021, rejecting the application. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9238 WP No. 5327 of 2025 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration. On service of summons, defendants filed the written statement. Thereafter, they filed an application for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and the same has been allowed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues. When the matter was posted for trial, the petitioners/defendants filed one more application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the written statement. The trial court rejected the application only on the ground that in the earlier amendment, the very same statement has been made and further amendment is unnecessary. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants pointed out that, by filing an amended written statement the petitioners/defendants wants to explain the statement made in the earlier written statement. That application was filed before the commencement of the trial. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9238 WP No. 5327 of 2025 4. The objection of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs is that the defendants are not diligent in making an application. Even on the earlier occasion also they have filed an application to amend the written statement and that has been allowed. Again, they filed one more application just to drag the matter. 5. The petitioners have filed the application for amendment to the written statement, they are not withdrawing any statement made in the earlier written statement, but they are only explaining the earlier written statement by way of amendment, that too, the amendment of the written statement is filed before the trial commenced. Under the circumstances, the trial court erred in rejecting the application. 6. In view of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9238 WP No. 5327 of 2025 25), Bengaluru on IA No.4 in O.S.No.6783/2021 is set aside. (iii) IA No.4 filed by the defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 46