- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23084 WP No. 9980 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 9980 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PRAKASHA, S/O LATE RAJANNA @ NARASAPPA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, SWANDENAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOKA T, ADVOCATE AND SRI. KEERTHI PRASAD D.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJANNA, S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED 40 YEARS, 2. SHANKARAIAH, S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGE 38 YEARS, 3. PUSHPALATHA, D/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGE 36 YEARS, 4. NARASIMHARAJU, S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23084 WP No. 9980 of 2025 AGE 32 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NAGARAJUNAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107. 5. SMT. GANGANARASAMMA, WO RAJANNA @ NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NARASIMHARAJU, SINCE DEAD BY L. RS. 6. SUJATHA, W/O LATE NARASIMHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 7. VIJAY S/O LATE NARASIMHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO., 6 AND 7 ARE R/AT OF BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 104. 8. SEENA S/O LATE DODDANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 9. KANTHA, S/O LATE DODDANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 8 AND 9 ARE R/O AMRUTHAGIRI, KORA HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23084 WP No. 9980 of 2025 TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 128. CHIKKANARASAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS. 10. THAYIMUDDAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, 11. NARASIMHAMURTHY @MUTHANNA B S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.10 AND 11 ARE BEERANAKALLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 104. 12. NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O UGRAPPA @ CHIKKANARAAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O NAGARAJUNAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107. 13. GOWRAMMA, W/O MANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT THIMMARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107. 14. RAMANNA S/O MANDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT THIMMARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 107. …RESPONDENTS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23084 WP No. 9980 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.02.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMKURU IN OS. NO. 650/2008 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO. 15 FIELD BY THE PETITIONER U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – defendant No.3 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, in O.S.No.650/2008, rejecting an application – I.A.No.15 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement. 2. Heard Sri Ashoka T. and Sri Keerthi Prasad D.C., learned counsel for petitioner. Notice not issued to the respondents. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23084 WP No. 9980 of 2025 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: A suit is instituted by respondent Nos.1 to 4 - plaintiffs seeking partition. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the suit. A suit in O.S.No.10/1998 was decreed on 02.04.2007 and as an offshoot of the same, another suit is instituted in O.S.No.650/2008, by respondent Nos.1 to 4 – plaintiffs. After about 16 years of the institution of the suit, an application – I.A.No.15 is filed by defendant No.3, under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the written statement for dismissal of the suit, since the suit is not valued property for pecuniary jurisdiction. Objections are filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 – plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and the concerned Court rejects the application. The order of rejection has driven defendant No.3 to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant No.3 would contend that the application is preferred in the wake of the concerned Court not having pecuniary jurisdiction on the score of under valuation of the property made by the plaintiffs as on the date of filing of the suit. He would reiterate the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23084 WP No. 9980 of 2025 contention made in the petition and seeks allowing of the petition. 5. The concerned Court by the impugned order rejects the application – I.A.No.15 on the following reasons:. “8. Points No.1: Admittedly the present application has been filed by the defendant No.3 when the matter is at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. By virtue of this application the defendant No.3 has sought for amendment of written statement as sought for in the application. By virtue of proposed amendment the defendant No.1 to 3 have intending to incorporate a paragraph in their written statement in respect of the valuation made by the plaintiffs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended by the defendant No.3 that, the market value of the suit schedule properties exceeds Rs.5,00,000/- which ousts the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 9. On perusal of the contents of affidavit sworn by the defendant No.3. nowhere he has stated the reason for delay in bringing the proposed amendment at a belated stage that too after commencement of trial. As per Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, по application for amendment could be allowed after commencement of trial provided, if the party seeking amendment has shown before the Court that, inspite of exercising due diligence he could not able to bring the amendment before commencement of the trial. Since admittedly the trial in this case was commenced, the defendant No.3 has to give proper reasons for having not brought the amendment at the earliest possible opportunity i.e., before commencement of trial. Admittedly, the written statement was filed by the defendants no.1 to 3 on 10.08.2010 itself. After lapse of more than 14 years, the defendant No.3 has come up with this application questioning the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23084 WP No. 9980 of 2025 pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court without assigning any proper reason for bringing the proposed amendment at a belated stage. 10. In the affidavit the defendant No.3 has sworn that, while going through the case file for preparing the cross-examination of PW1, he noticed that, the plaintiffs have not valued the suit schedule properties as per market value. The said reason cannot be acceptable for the reason that, the written statement was filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in the year 2010 itself. Therefore, at this belated stage, the application filed by the defendant No.3 cannot be allowed. The defendant No.3 has not placed any due diligence before the Court for having not brought the proposed amendment before commencement of the trial. At this stage, if the application is allowed, the plaintiffs will be put into great hardship and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. On the other hand, no hardship or injury will be caused to the defendant, if the application is rejected. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the 'Negative'.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court observes that the suit is valued at the time of institution of the suit; the written statement is filed in the year 2010, 15 years passed by and now, defendant No.3 wants to amend the written statement bringing in a paragraph with regard to the valuation of the property made by the plaintiffs as it is being not valued in terms of the market value. Therefore, the jurisdiction on pecuniary lines is out of Court. The concerned Court holds that all the defendants had preferred the written statement in the year 2010 itself and in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23084 WP No. 9980 of 2025 the affidavit of defendant No.3, at the time of cross- examination it is only then the application is filed without indicating the reason for delay. In that light, the application comes to be rejected. 6. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the concerned Court for this Court to intervene and permit amendment of the written statement after 15 years of its filing. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5 CT: SS