- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13498 WP No. 9299 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9299 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI K M MANUKUMAR S/O. MANCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT. MAIN ROAD KHADAR NAGAR BATAWADI-572 102. TUMAKURU CITY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. A. SAROJA W/O. LATE. N. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT. ‘VINAYAKA' 3RD MAIN ROAD 7TH CROSS, NEAR APARNA DEPARTMENTAL STORES NRUPATHUNGA EXTENSION JAYANAGARA EAST SHETTIHALLI EXTENSION TUMAKURU CITY - 572 103 2. SRI. MOHAMMED NISAR AHMED S/O. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT. BEHIND TRAFFIC POLICE STATION BAR LINE ROAD TUMAKURU CITY - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13498 WP No. 9299 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, PASSED ON IA NO. 6, FILED BY THE PETITIONER / DEFENDANT NO. 1 IN OS NO. 190/2022, UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT, VIDE ANNX-E. b) ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER / DEFENDANT NO. 1, UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, FILED FOR AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT, IN OS NO. 190/2022, FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, VIDE ANNX-C, GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN OS NO. 190/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru on I.A.No.VI filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.190/2022, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the said application. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction. On service of suit summons, the defendants appeared and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13498 WP No. 9299 of 2025 filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed issues. When the matter was posted for evidence of the parties, defendant No.1 has filed I.A.No.VI under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. The defendants want to amend the written statement contending that defendant No.2 is the absolute owner having right, title and possession over the written statement schedule property and all the documents are standing in his name and also narranted the source of title to the property in question in the written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. The trial Court by impugned order, has dismissed the application filed by defendant No.1. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. The written statement schedule property is not a suit schedule property. The defendants have not sought for any counter claim in respect of the proposed amendment schedule property. It is also settled position of law that in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13498 WP No. 9299 of 2025 a suit for bare injunction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. The issue involved in the suit for injunction is mainly on the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and alleged interference caused by the defendants. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14