- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25331 W.P. No.24709/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.24709/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIJAYA LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O LATE AMBARISH. 2. SRI. MANOHER AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O LATE AMBARISH. BOTH ARE R/AT. NAGANAYAKANAHALLI PALYA, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562129. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH S, ADV.,) AND: 1. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE DODDATHIMMAIAH R/AT NO.659/D, 12TH CROSS 5 & 6 BETWEEN, VAYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-560003. 2. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O LATE SRINIVAS. 3. GOVINDAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25331 W.P. No.24709/2019 R2 & R3 ARE R/AT ATTUR VILLAGE, KAIVARA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK-5613125. 4. SMT. KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O NARASIMHAMAPPA R/A ATTUR VILLAGE, KAIVARA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK-5613125. 5. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O LATE SRINIVASA. 6. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE DODDATHIMMAPPA. R5 & R6 BOTH ARE R/AT NO.969 11TH CROSS, M.E.M.L. LAYOUT 3RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BANGALORE-560098. 7. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE VENKATAPATHY. 8. KUM. UMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPATHY. 9. RAGHU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATAPATHY. 10. HEMANTH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATAPATHY SINCE DEAD R7 TO R9 ARE LR'S OF R10. 11. RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O MUNISHAMAPPA. RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 11 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25331 W.P. No.24709/2019 R/AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI PALYA VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADV., FOR R7 TO R10 R1 TO R6 SERVICE OF NOTICE D/W V.C.O.DTD:25.10.2023 R11 SERVED R7 TO R9 ARE THE LR'S OF DECEASED R10 V.C.O.DTD:17.03.2025) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OF APPROPRIATE NATURE QUASHING THE ORDER DTD.11.04.2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION DEVANAHALLI, IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF i.e. I.A.NO.7 U/O 6 RULE 17 C.P.C., IN O.S.NO.305/2009, VIDE ANNX-EF & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: i) Writ of certiorari or order of appropriate nature quashing the order dated 11.04.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Devanahalli, in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiff i.e., I.A.No.7 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, in O.S.No.305/2009, vide Annexure-E. ii) Issue a writ or order by allowing the application I.A.No.7 under order 6 Rule 17 CPC, in O.S.No.305/2009, vide Annexure-E. 2. Heard. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25331 W.P. No.24709/2019 3. Sri.Suresh S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the issues were framed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint to incorporate some typographical error crept in the suit schedule and also to bring certain facts with regard to the partition effected on 03.05.1948. It is submitted that the petitioners came to know that item Nos.1 and 2 properties were the subject matter of the said deed and had been alienated without their knowledge in favour of the defendant Nos.7 to 10. Hence, they proposed to seek additional prayer to declare the sale deed dated 06.10.1995 as not binding. The Trial Court, without considering any of these aspects recorded a finding that the petitioners did not show due diligence in the matter and no reasonable grounds were made out and rejected the application. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would neither change the nature of the suit nor would it cause any prejudice to the other side. Hence, it may be allowed so that there will be complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties as the suit is for partition and separate possession. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25331 W.P. No.24709/2019 4. Per contra, Sri Sunil S.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7 to 10 fairly submits that the amendment sought in the application is not opposed except seeking to add the additional prayer in the application i.e. to declare that the sale deed dated 06.10.1995 as not binding on them. It is submitted that the said amendment sought is hit by limitation as the petitioners were well aware of the execution of the sale deed and it was specifically made known to them by the defendant Nos.7 to 10 in their written statement filed on 05.12.2009. Even if the limitation runs from the said date also, the said prayer cannot be allowed. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition to the aforesaid extent. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 10 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both the sides. 6. The petitioners have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S.No.305/2009. The said suit is for partition and separate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25331 W.P. No.24709/2019 possession with regard to the various 6 items of the properties. The defendant Nos.7 and 8 are the subsequent purchasers of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, who are already on record. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7 to 10 has clearly conceded that he has no objections to allow the errors crept in the suit schedule with regard to the survey numbers etc. and also to bring on record the narration of facts at paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) in the proposed amendment. It is specifically contented by the other side that the proposed amendment with regard to the additional prayer of declaration that the sale deed dated 06.10.1995, cannot be granted as the same is beyond the period of limitation. Though the Trial Court did not assign any reason with regard to limitation, it has come to the right conclusion that the proposed amendment is without due diligence. The written statement dated 05.12.2009 filed by the respondent Nos.7 to 10 clearly indicates at paragraph 3 that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiff No.2 sold item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of Venkatapathi and Ramakrishnappa under a sale deed dated 06.10.1995. The said averment in the written statement has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25331 W.P. No.24709/2019 come to the knowledge of the petitioner on 05.12.2009. Hence, the proposed amendment sought for the additional payer is beyond the period of limitation and the same is liable to be rejected. 7. Learned counsel representing the parties submit that the suit is of the year 2009 and a direction may be issued for early disposal of the same. I am of the considered view that no positive mandamus can be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in a particular time. However, the Trial Court may take note of the same and consider the request of the learned counsel for the parties and dispose of the same taking note of the pendency of the cases before it. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 11.04.2019 passed on I.A.No.7 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, in O.S.No.305/2009 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Devanahalli, is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25331 W.P. No.24709/2019 Consequently, I.A.No.7 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed-in-part, except seeking additional prayer for declaration that the sale deed dated 06.10.1995 is not binding upon the plaintiff's share. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26