- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20191 W.P. No.22965/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22965/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. JALAJAKSHI W/O LATE BALAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. DURGESH BHAT S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 3. DINKAR BHAT S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. 'ANANTHA NILAYA' KINYA TALAPADY, DEVIPURA POST MANGALURU-575 023. 4. DHANALAKSHMI W/O RAVINDRA AJJITHAYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A KURIYA AT & POST PUTTUR TALUK-574 210 MANGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADV.,) AND: 1. GUNAVATHI D/O LATE BALAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT TATTAJE HOUSE KINYA POST DEVINAGAR, TALAPADY MANGALURU-575 023. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20191 W.P. No.22965/2019 2. VEDAVYASA BHAT AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT. SRINGERI MUTT KOTEKAR POST-575 023 MANGLAURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:12.08.2022, PETITION AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.04.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU ON I.A.NO.13 IN O.S.NO.187/2014 VIDE ANNX-'G' AND BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE I.A.NO.13 VIDE ANNX-'E' FILED BY THE R-1 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru on I.A.No.13 in O.S. No.187/2014 vide Annexure-G and be pleased to dismiss the I.A.No.13 vide Annexure-E filed by the first respondent. ii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20191 W.P. No.22965/2019 3. Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.187/2014 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. (for short, 'trial Court'). The said suit came to be filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff and the trial Court decreed the suit by granting 1/6th share to respondent No.1 in the suit schedule properties. It is further submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court was assailed by the petitioners in R.A.No.32/2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Mangaluru (for short, 'Appellate Court') and the appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.187/2014, framed an additional issue and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to record evidence on the additional issue. It is also submitted that after remanding of the matter, respondent No.1- plaintiff has filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, which came to be allowed by the trial Court under the impugned order. It is contended that the appellate Court has directed to record the evidence on the additional issue and decide the case on merits and not to amend the plaint. It is further contended that the amendment sought by respondent No.1-plaintiff would change the nature of the relief sought in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20191 W.P. No.22965/2019 plaint and the trial Court ought to have rejected the said application. However, the trial Court without assigning any proper reasons, allowed the said application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and by rejecting the application for amendment. 4. Per contra, Smt.Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material available on record. 6. The pleading and material available on record indicate that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.187/2014 for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property. The suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 26.04.2017, wherein the trial Court has granted a decree in favour of respondent No.1 holding that respondent No.1 is entitled for partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed the appeal in R.A.No.32/2017. The appellate Court vide judgment - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20191 W.P. No.22965/2019 dated 19.04.2018 set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.187/2014 dated 26.04.2017. The appellate Court has framed the additional issue, which reads as under: "Whether plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is the daughter of late Balakrishna Bhat?" 7. The appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court to record the evidence on the additional issue and hear the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both the sides without any influence of the observations made in the body of the said Judgment. After remanding, respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking for amendment of the body of the plaint, by insertion of para Nos.2(a) and 2(b). The aforesaid amendment was opposed by the petitioners herein by way of objections contending that the amendment cannot be allowed, which would change the nature of the suit. The trial Court considering the submissions, recorded the finding that those amendments are necessary to address the additional issue framed by the appellate Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20191 W.P. No.22965/2019 8. I have meticulously gone through the amendment sought. The amendment is nothing but the respondent No.1- plaintiff intends to prove that she is the daughter of late Balakrishna Bhat. Without the aforesaid pleading there cannot be any proper adjudication on the additional issue framed by the appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2017. The amendment sought would not change the nature of the suit nor would it cause any prejudice to the petitioner. It is always open for the petitioner to file an additional written statement to the aforesaid amendment. It is trite law that mere allowing of the amendment of pleading is not amounting to decreeing of the suit. Hence, I am of the considered view that the trial Court is fully justified in allowing the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in this petition. The petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2022 would not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25