- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21834 WP No. 15172 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15172 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHARADHAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SOMANAHALLI KAVALU KUDURUGUNDI POST DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DIST. - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B.V.KARIGOWDA S/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT PWD COLONY HASSAN - 573 201. 2. RAMESH S/O DODDA ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BOOGARAHALLI KOPPALU KUDURUGUNDI POST DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DIST. - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.SRIHARI, ADV. FOR M/S LEX JUSTICE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 24.06.2025)) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21834 WP No. 15172 of 2020 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN IN O.S.NO.256/2012 ON DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VIII PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following relief: "I) Issue a writ of certiorari or by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan in O.S.No.256/2012, on dated 06/02/2020; passed on I.A.No.VIII produced at Annexure-F. II) Pass any other appropriate writ or order or direction as deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Smt. Sharadamba A.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents with regard to the suit schedule properties mentioned in the plaint. The said suit was duly defended by the respondents by filing written statement. After the evidence are recorded, at the belated stage, respondent No.1 filed an application seeking amendment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21834 WP No. 15172 of 2020 of the written statement, wherein respondent No.1 sought to insert a family arrangement took place and with regard to change of revenue entries. It is submitted that the trial Court without considering the factual aspects allowed the application to amend the written statement. It is submitted that the suit is for bare injunction and nothing has prevented respondent No.1 from placing the same before the Court when the written statement was filed. The filing of application at a belated stage is an abuse of the process of law and a tactic to protract the proceedings and the present sought amendment to the written statement has no bearing to decide the dispute between the parties. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition. 3. Sri. K.Shrihari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the order under challenge. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Meticulously perused the materials available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21834 WP No. 15172 of 2020 5. The material on record indicates that the petitioner filed O.S.No.256/2012 seeking relief of judgment and decree of permanent injunction against the respondents and the said suit came to be decreed ex-parte. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred a regular appeal which came to be allowed in R.A.No.86/2015 and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal after providing an opportunity to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. The said application is accompanied by an affidavit. The affidavit of respondent No.1 indicates that due to a bonafide mistake he could not bring certain factual aspects in the written statement more particularly with regard to the family arrangements arrived by them and consequent to such arrangement, name of one Rangaswamy has been effected in the RTC. Considering the same, the trial Court allowed the said application with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21834 WP No. 15172 of 2020 6. The application filed by respondent No.1 seeking amendment of the written statement is with regard to insertion of certain facts which were borne out from the revenue records. If these records are brought on record in the form of amended written statement, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The trial Court recording the same has allowed the application. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court further observed that the amendment sought by respondent No.1 would not change the nature of the suit nor it take away any admissions in the evidence. Hence, I am of the considered view that the trial Court is fully justified in allowing the application. I find no error in the said order calling interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. SD/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21