- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19603 W.P. No.50987/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.50987 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PUTTANANJAMMA W/O SRI. CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. THUBINAKERE VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADV., FOR SRI. GURURAJ R, ADV.,) AND: 1. KUMAR S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT. THUBINAKERE VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. 2. PUTTARAJU S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. THUBINAKERE VILLAGE HIRISAVE HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY B.K. ADV., FOR R1 R2 W.P. STOOD ABATED V.C.O.DTD:09.09.2024) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19603 W.P. No.50987/2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.12 IN OS NO.109 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNARAYAPATNA AS PER ANNX-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 the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 14.10.2019 passed on IA No.12 in OS No.109 of 2009 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Channarayapatna as per Annexure-F; ii. Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard. 3. Smt.Aishwarya Hegde, learned counsel for Sri.Gururaj R., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents herein filed P & SC No.1/2002 seeking for issuance of probate certificate based on the Will executed by Smt.Javaramma dated 30.08.1995 and in the said proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed objections. Considering the said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19603 W.P. No.50987/2019 objections, the trial Court converted the said proceedings into suit in the year 2009. It is further submitted that after converting it into a suit, the respondents herein have led the evidence and belatedly i.e., after ten (10) years, filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking for amendment of the plaint and the said application was opposed by the petitioner as there is no due diligence on the part of respondent and there is enormous delay. However, the trial Court without appreciating the facts and law on the point, allowed I.A.No.12 by permitting the amendment. Hence, the present petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Vijay B.K., learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court has imposed cost of Rs.3,000/- for the negligence of plaintiffs/respondents and recorded the clear finding that non amendment of the plaint would lead to multiplicity of litigation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of both side and perused the material available on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19603 W.P. No.50987/2019 6. The undisputed facts are that respondents have filed P & SC No.1/2002 on the file of District Judge, Hassan, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking for issuance of probate certificate in their favour with respect to the Will executed by Smt.Javaramma on 30.08.1995. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed objections contending that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of late Smt.Javaramma and has denied the execution of the Will. The trial Court rightly considered the objections and converted the said proceedings into suit and transferred the same to jurisdictional Court. The said case is numbered as O.S.No.109/2009 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna. It is not in dispute that in the said proceedings, the respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, have led evidence and thereafter filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought in the plaint is with regard to the prayers which read as under: "a) Declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. b) For permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, or anybody claiming from them from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19603 W.P. No.50987/2019 possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, permanently." c) For Recovery of court costs and such other relief this Hon'ble court Deems it fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 7. The aforesaid prayers sought indicate that the respondents intend to seek declaration that the respondents- plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and further prayer for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner herein. Though the said application is filed belatedly, the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that if the application is not allowed, the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated. 8. It is trite law that, the amendment of pleading under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is a normal rule and its rejection is an exception. Allowing of the application does not mean the plaintiff has been given relief as sought for in the suit, the defendant is at liberty to take up all contentions available in law by filing an additional written statement. 9. Hence, I am of the considered view that the finding of the trial Court on the application is in consonance with the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19603 W.P. No.50987/2019 pleading and settled position of law. The trial Court has also taken note that there is a delay in filing such application and imposed cost of Rs.3,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the defendant-petitioner has not adduced evidence in the said suit, hence, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant- petitioner, if the said application is allowed by permitting the petitioner-defendant to file the additional written statement. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, writ petition is dismissed. However, insofar as imposing of cost of Rs.3,000/- by the trial Court, the same is enhanced to Rs.6,000/-. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 38 Sl No.: 21