- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22141 W.P. No.50586/2019 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.50586/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MASROOR PASHA S/O ANWAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. SMT. AKTHARUNISSA W/O ANWAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NO.20 SOUNDE'S ROAD FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE-560005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SAHANA AHMADI W/O YUSUF SUHAIL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A H.NO.281, 7TH CROSS 2ND MAIN ROAD NEAR KADIRENAHALLI CROSS BANGALORE-560078. 2. SRI. FAN KUCHUN S/O LATE CHUN SHANG AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.145/1, NEHRU STREET VENKATESHPURAM, BANGALORE-560045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T. ADV., FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22141 W.P. No.50586/2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNX-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE (CCH-25) ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-25) DATED 11.10.19 PASSED ON THE APPLICATIONS FILED U/S 151 OF CPC AND APPLICATION U/O 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.6275/2008 & 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 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure-'A', passed by the Hon'ble (CCH-25) Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-25) dated 11- 10-19 passed on the applications filed under Section 151 of CPC and application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in O.S No.6275/2008. b. Issue any other direction or pass any other order this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Sri.Syed Khaleel Pasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondents filed a suit for declaration and consequential prayers. In the said suit the petitioners filed detailed written statement and thereafter, during the pendency of the said suit, respondent No.1 filed a private complaint which was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22141 W.P. No.50586/2019 referred to the Jurisdictional police for investigation and on investigation, the police have filed ‘B’ report. During the investigation, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) in question was sent for FSL. The said report indicates that the GPA executed by respondent No.2 in favour of petitioner No.2 is genuine. Thus, the petitioners intended to bring the said facts into the written statement. Hence, they filed the applications for amendment of the written statement. However, the trial Court, without assigning any reasons, solely on the ground that the applications were filed belatedly, proceeded to reject the applications. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Sri.Yashwanth Nethaji N.T., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports that order of the trial Court and submits that firstly the applications filed for amendment of the written statement were field after the conclusion of the entire trial and when the matter was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22141 W.P. No.50586/2019 posted for arguments. Secondly, there is a delay of 11 years and the same is not been explained in the applications. Thirdly, in the written statement originally filed by the petitioners clearly admitted that there is no GPA executed by respondent No.2 in favor of petitioner No.2. However, contrary to the same, now the amendment is sought to incorporate and substantiate the claim that there was a GPA and the said GPA is genuine. The amendment is nothing but an attempt to overcome the admission in the written statement filed by the petitioners. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. Respondents filed O.S.No.6275/2008 seeking the following reliefs: "a) Declaring that the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of Suit property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22141 W.P. No.50586/2019 b) Declare the Sale Deed dated 3/12/2007 alleged to have been executed by 2nd Defendant in favour of 1st Defendant as null and void and does not bind the plaintiffs in any manner. c) Direct the defendants to hand over the possession of suit property to the 1st plaintiff by removing the small room constructed on it. d) Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, including mesne profits/damages and costs, in the interest of justice and equity." 6. The petitioners filed written statement. In paragraph No.5 of the written statement, the petitioners have taken the stand that respondent No.2 has sold the property in favour of petitioner No.1 and now the present applications are filed seeking to incorporate facts claiming that these facts are necessary in view of the initiation of criminal proceedings by respondents against the petitioners with regard to the alleged GPA. The stand sought to be taken in the additional written statement is contrary to the stand taken by the petitioners in the original written statement and they cannot be allowed to take such stand as the pleading has already came on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22141 W.P. No.50586/2019 record and based on such pleading, the parties have adduced the evidence. The petitioners intend to overcome such pleading by way of seeking amendment of the written statement. Though the trial Court has not assigned any reasons and rejected the applications, I am of the considered view that allowing the applications at this belated stage and those sought facts in the written statement has no bearing to decide the suit filed by respondents. Hence, I am of the considered view that there is absolutely no merit in the applications filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the written statement. Hence, for the aforementioned reason, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41