- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5268 WP No. 28869 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 28869 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M. HARINATH S/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LSR, 2A. SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2B. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2C. SRI. SHAMAPPA S/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2D. SMT. RATHNAMMA @ PEDDAMMAIAH W/O. CHINNAPPA, D/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2E. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O. LATE. VENKATESHAPPA, D/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 2 (E) ARE R/O. RAMARAYANAKOTE VILLAGE, KANNASANDRA POST, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT -563 136 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5268 WP No. 28869 of 2019 2F. SMT. RUKKAMMA W/O. LATE. MUNISWAMY, D/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT RAJENDRAHALLY VILLAGE, BYRAKUR HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DIST 2G. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. SEENAPPA, D/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT UBBANADAHALLI VILLAGE, PADMAGATTA POST, KASABA HOBLI, MULBGAL TALUK, KOLAR DIST 2H. SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O. KRISHNAPPA, D/O. LATE. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT BALASANDRA VILLAGE, AMBLIKAL POST, DUGGASANDRA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 3. SMT. A.M.NARAYANAGOWDA S/O. LATE. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT M. ATTIKUNTE VILLAGE, KANNASANDRA POST, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISRICT -563 136 4. SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O. LATE. CHANGAPPA, R/AT M. ATTIKUNTE VILLAGE, KANNASANDRA POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DIST- 563 136 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA T., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5268 WP No. 28869 of 2019 AND: SRI. M.V.LAKSHMANAREDDY S/O. LATE. VENKATARAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT M. ATTIKUNTE VILLAGE, KANNASANDRA POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DIST -563 136 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.B.SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED: 31.5.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL, ON I.A.NO.14/2017 IN O.S.NO.223/2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, VOID AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 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 The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.14/2017 in O.S.No.223/2013 dated 31.05.2019 passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal, the defendant is before this court. 2. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff in the suit had originally filed the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 who have illegally entered into the possession and remained in possession since 02.04.2010 to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5268 WP No. 28869 of 2019 deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule Item No.1 to the plaintiff and further directing defendant Nos.3 and 4 who have illegally entered into the possession and remained in possession since 02.04.2010 to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule item No. 2 to the plaintiff. He has sought for a mandatory injunction and also the possession in respect of plaint 1 and 2 suit schedule properties and he sought for declaration in respect of both the properties. In the original schedule it is survey No.36/1 measuring 13 guntas out of 3 acres 10 guntas retained by defendant Nos.1 & 2 and in the suit schedule No.2 is survey No. 36/1 measuring 0.17 guntas out of 3 acres 10 guntas retained by defendant Nos.3 & 4. The suit is of the year 2013 and on 14.06.2019 this application came to be filed seeking amendment whereby, they want to amend the schedule for item No.1 now they have incorporated 1.37 acres and item No.(c) has 00.03 guntas, 1(a) and 1(c) were added where they have shown 1.37 acres and 0.03 guntas. It is stated that have purchased the property by way of the three sale deeds and originally though they have mentioned about the sale deeds but entire land was not mentioned and now by way of this amendment they want to incorporate the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5268 WP No. 28869 of 2019 entire lands in the schedule of the properties. The Court by order impugned had allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. While allowing the application the court observed that it is contended by the plaintiff that he has purchased suit schedule property under three registered sale deeds and total extent of the property was not mentioned in the plaint at the time of filing the suit and as such proposed amendment is necessary in order to ascertain the total extent and boundaries of the suit schedule properties. The proposed amendment will assist the court in ascertaining and elucidating real dispute between the parties and rejection of the application may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and accordingly allowed the application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant submits that when the suit is filed in the year 2013 and the present application is filed in the year 2019, after the commencement of the trial neither the plaintiff has stated why they have sought for such an amendment now and there is no observation or there is no reasoning given by the Court why such an application is allowed except stating that it would help the court in ascertaining the real dispute between the parties. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5268 WP No. 28869 of 2019 He submits that unless and until the parties submits before the court that inspite of due diligence the pleadings could not be brought to the notice of the court and just like that mechanically courts cannot entertain the applications and the order impugned needs to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the court has rightly passed an order observing that for deciding the real dispute between the parties the amendment is necessary. It is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side perused the entire material on record. The suit is for declaration of title and mandatory injunction, he is seeking declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule properties and a mandatory injunction in respect of plaint 1 and 2 suit schedule properties. Now by virtue of the amendment he has added plaint 1(a) and (c) properties which were not part of his original prayer. Why those properties were not initially added and now at this point of time, he is seeking declaration of title in respect of the additional properties. There should have been some explanation forthcoming in the application filed by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5268 WP No. 28869 of 2019 plaintiff and a perusal of the affidavit discloses that no such explanation is forthcoming. The trial court in a mechanical manner had allowed this application seeking amendment, the amendment will definitely change the nature of the suit and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings at this stage without a proper reason and in the considered opinion of the Court, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. The orders passed on I.A No.14/2017 in O.S No.223/2013 dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal, is set aside and consequently I.A No.14/17 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is Allowed. iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32