- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:785 WP No. 14012 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14012 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT PADMAVATHAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O MUTHKADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ. R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O MUTHKADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. 2. SRI ANANTH KUMAR S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O MUTHKADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. 3. SRI RAJESH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:785 WP No. 14012 of 2022 R/O MUTHKADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 02.07.2022 PASSED ON IA.IX, FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.424/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur on I.A.No.IX filed under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.424/2013, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said application. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:785 WP No. 14012 of 2022 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. When the matter was posted for arguments, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.IX under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of the plaint only in respect of the age of the plaintiff. At the time of filing of the suit, the age of the plaintiff has been mentioned as ‘40’ instead of ‘45’. Along with amendment application, the plaintiff enclosed the relevant documents. Allowing of the amendment application correcting the age of the plaintiff will not cause any prejudice to the parties or change the nature of the suit. The trial Court without considering this aspect of the matter, erred in dismissing the application. 3. Respondent is served and unrepresented. 4. Be that as it may. The plaintiff has filed I.A.No.IX under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of the plaint only in respect of the age of the plaintiff. Taking into consideration of nature of the suit, if - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:785 WP No. 14012 of 2022 the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties. 5. In this view of the matter, the approach adopted by the Trial Court is incorrect and it needs to be corrected in terms of supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER a) The writ petition is disposed of. b) The order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur on I.A.No.IX filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC in O.S.No.424/2013 is hereby set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:785 WP No. 14012 of 2022 c) I.A.No.IX filed by the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint is hereby allowed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40