- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8557 WP No. 30265 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30882 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30265 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 30882 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 30265/2024 BETWEEN: 1. BALARI RAI @ BALARI V SHETTY W/O M D VINAYAKUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O SWATHI NILAYA RATHNAGIRI BORE BADAVANE CHIKMAGALUR CITY CHIKMAGALUR TALUK-577101. 2. NARAYANA GOWDA S/O RUDRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. SMT H N SUJATHA W/O NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PETITIONER NO.2 & 3 ARE R/O KUVEMPU NAGAR CHIKMAGALUR CITY AND TALUK- 577101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N R.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8557 WP No. 30265 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30882 of 2024 AND: 1. SMT. SHAFINAZ W/O SHABBIR S AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O BELUR ROAD CHIKMAGALUR CITY REP. BY GPA HOLDER ANWAR AHMED S/O LATE SHEIK BUDENSAB AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O BELUR ROAD CHIKMAGALUR CITY CHIKMAGALUR TALUK-577101. 2. B MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE BAGAMANE RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 3. SMT D PARVATHI W/O MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 4. DR DINESH S/O B MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 5. SMT B CHANDRAKALA D/O B MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. VIJAYA S/O MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 7. B SANDESH @ SANDESH S/O B MANJE GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8557 WP No. 30265 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30882 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R2 TO R7 ARE R/O ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR CITY AND TALUK- 577101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUSHA ASUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.A MADHUSUDHANA RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 21.08.2024 ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON IA NO.18 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS/ PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS NO. 18/2015 BY THE LEARNED III ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKMAGALURU AND ETC. IN WP NO. 30882/2024 BETWEEN: 1. BALARI RAI @ BALARI V SHETTY W/O M D VINAYAKUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O SWATHI NILAYA RATHNAGIRI BORE BADAVANE CHIKMAGALUR CITY CHIKMAGALUR TALUK PIN -577101. 2. NARAYANA GOWDA S/O RUDRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. SMT H N SUJATHA W/O NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PETITIONER Nos.2 & 3 ARE R/O KUVEMPU NAGAR CHIKMAGALUR CITY AND TALUK-577101. ...PETITIONERS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8557 WP No. 30265 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30882 of 2024 (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR N R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANWAR AHMED S/O LATE SHEIK BUDENSAB AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O BELUR ROAD CHIKMAGALUR CITY CHIKMAGALUR TALUK PIN-577101. 2. B MAJEGOWDA S/O LATE BAGAMANE RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 3. SMT D PARVATHI W/O MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 4. DR DINESH S/O B MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 5. SMT B CHANDRAKALA D/O B MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. VIJAYA S/O MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 7. B SANDESH @ SANDESH S/O B MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R2 TO R7 ARE R/O ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8557 WP No. 30265 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30882 of 2024 VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALUR CITY AND TALUK PIN-577101. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUSHA ASUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 21.08.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED ON IA NO. 16 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS/PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER-VI RULE -17 R.W. SEC 151 OF CPC IN OS NO. 17/2015 BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKMAGALURU AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. These writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.7, 8 and 9 challenging the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, on I.A.No.18 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.18/2015 and on I.A.No.16 filed under - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8557 WP No. 30265 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30882 of 2024 Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.17/2015, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the said applications. 2. The plaintiff filed both the suits for relief of permanent injunction. After issuance of suit summons, the defendants have appeared through counsel and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and denied the ownership of the plaint schedule property. When the matter was posted for evidence, the defendant Nos.7 to 9 have filed the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in both the suits seeking permission to amend the written statement. The Trial Court by impugned order has rejected the said applications. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitions are filed. 3. By way of amendment, the defendants want to include an additional paragraph to the written statement that the plaintiff has purchased the property through sale - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8557 WP No. 30265 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30882 of 2024 deed only to an extent of 100 feet East to West and 200 feet North-South. 4. By allowing the applications, it will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs. Even in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is necessary to allow the applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Since there is delay in filing the said applications, the inaction on the part of the defendants can be met by imposing certain conditions on the defendants. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petitions are allowed. b) The order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, on applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 in O.S.No.18/2015 and O.S.No.17/2015, is set aside. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8557 WP No. 30265 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30882 of 2024 c) The applications filed by the defendant Nos.7 to 9 under Order 6 Rule 17 in both the suits are allowed. d) It is made clear that the petitioners herein shall not seek for recalling any witnesses, which are already completed. e) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suits in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40