- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6596 WP No. 13778 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13778 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT R VINODA D/O K RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.672, 6TH CROSS 6TH MAIN (MYSORE ANANTHSWAMY ROAD) HANUMANTHNAGAR BANGALORE-560019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH K M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT CHANNAMMA W/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. SRI M VENKATASHAMAIAH (VENKATESH) S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SRI M SRINIVASA S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE COLONY SUBRAMANYAPURA POST UTTARAHALLI HOBLI Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6596 WP No. 13778 of 2024 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANDRAHASA., ADVOCATE FOR R2: PETITION AGAINST R1 & R3 DOES NOT SURVIVE V/O DATED: 10.09.2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.3.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 10 IN OS NO.8780/2012 BY THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-14) VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.8780/2012, whereby IA No.X filed by defendant No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 was allowed and he was permitted to amend the written statement. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction. On service of summons, defendant No.2 filed the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6596 WP No. 13778 of 2024 the trial court framed the issues and posted the matter for evidence. At the time of evidence of the defendants, the defendant No.2 filed the above application for amendment. The trial court allowed the application. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, the defendant No.2 has filed the amendment application just to drag the matter. The pleading made in the amendment application has nothing to do with the suit. Since the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is dragging the matter, under the circumstances, it is made clear that by allowing the application for amendment, the defendant No.2 shall not seek to adduce further evidence. 3. With the above condition, the amendment allowed by the trial court is upheld. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51