- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23218 W.P. No.5453/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.5453/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ANJALI W/O LATE RANGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT GANDHI NAGARA EXTENSION NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE BHADRAVATHI - 577 301. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MUTHUSWAMY .R S/O LATE RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. GANDHI NAGARA EXTENSION NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE BHADRAVATHI - 577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. P. MANI S/O PONNUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O P. MANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 3. M. GANGADHARA S/O P. MANI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 4. M. MANJUNATHA S/O P. MANI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23218 W.P. No.5453/2020 5. M. MANIKANTA S/O P. MANI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 6. SMT. RENUKA .M D/O P. MANI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O. MASARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R6) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.18.9.2019 ON IA NO.10 AND 11 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED IN O.S.NO.76/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHADRAVATHI, CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE IA NO.10 AND 11 AND ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-E, E1, F & 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 for the following reliefs: "Issue writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be and to quash the order dated 18.09.2019 on I.A.No.10 & 11 vide Annexure-J passed in O.S.No.76/2017 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravathi consequently reject the I.A.No.10 and 11 and additional written - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23218 W.P. No.5453/2020 statement filed by the respondents vide Annexures-E, E1 & F." 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit against the respondents herein for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 07.08.2014. The respondents defended the suit by denying the agreement. In the written statement, it is averred that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property. Based on the pleadings, issues were framed and the parties led the evidence. When the matter was posted for arguments, the respondents filed applications seeking to re- open the case and also seeking amendment of the written statement to add certain legal contentions that the father of the respondents has been granted land and they belonged to Bhovi community and there is a condition imposed for non-alienation of the land. The Trial Court, without considering the fact that absolutely no due diligence is explained in the application, at the fag end of the proceedings, allowed the said application - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23218 W.P. No.5453/2020 without considering the effect of the amendment. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Sri.Vasanthappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the respondents wanted to place the fact that the suit schedule property is a granted land in favour of their father through occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, Bhadravathi and since the said order contains a 15 years non- alienation clause, they cannot sell the land and the said legal contention is required to be taken note of before deciding the suit. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both the sides. 6. The petitioner filed O.S.No.76/2017 seeking the following relief: "a) For specific performance of the regd. sale agreement dated 07.08.2014 and on 16.03.2016 on the date of execution of Shara pathra and to directing, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23218 W.P. No.5453/2020 defendants to execute the Regd. Sale Deed as per the terms of the Regd. Sale Agreement with respect to the schedule property. b) And if the defendants are failed to execute the Regd. Sale Deeds, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to execute the regd. Sale deeds through the Ameen or Court Commissioner in accordance with law with their cost. c) And alternative relief that, if this Hon'ble Court come to conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for alternative remedy in such circumstances the plaintiff is entitled for amount of Rs.13,00,000/- with 18% p.a. with cost and damages. d) For the court costs and such other reliefs deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice." 7. The written statement filed by the respondents clearly indicates that the respondents did not disclose as to how they acquired the right over the property. It is averred that the property belonged to their family. Admittedly, the parties have led the evidence and after the matter was posted for arguments, the respondents filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC to re-open the case and also an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC to amend the written statement. The proposed amendment to the written statement indicated that the respondents intend to bring the fact that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23218 W.P. No.5453/2020 suit schedule land is granted in favour of their father through occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, Bhadravathi, and they belonged to Bhovi community and there is a bar under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. In my considered view, the Trial Court, without appreciating the fact that the application filed by the respondents seeking for amendment is bereft of grounds and that the real controversy involved in the suit is with regard to the enforcement of the agreement of sale dated 07.08.2011 between the parties, based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues. Contrary to the pleadings, issues and the evidence on record, now the respondents intend to bring the legal contention in the additional written statement which can be always argued at the time of arguments if it is available to them. The Trial Court, without appreciating this fact allowed the application for amendment of the written statement, which was uncalled for. The Trial Court, at paragraph 16 of the impugned order, has recorded that the respondents have dragged the proceedings and filed the applications belatedly. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing such - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23218 W.P. No.5453/2020 applications. It is always open for the respondents to argue the legal contention what they now intend to bring in the form of additional written statement at the time of arguments. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed on I.A.Nos.10 and 11 in O.S.No.76/2017 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.10 and 11 filed in O.S.No.76/2017 are rejected. (iii) The Trial Court shall take note of the fact that the suit is of the year 2017 and consider the same for early disposal. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44