- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107358 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: U. YOGANAND S/O THIPPIAHSWAMY @ THIPPESWAMY AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. PROP. ANAGHA AYURVEDALAYA, R/O. DOOR NO.33, 33/16A, WARD NO.17, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YADAWAD GIRISH ARUN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUJATHA W/O U SUNKAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. SUNKAPPA FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. OPP. TARANATH AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. 2. NAGARAJ S/O SUNKAPPA AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. OPP. TARANATH AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. 3. VENKATESH S/O SUNKAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. RAMA DEVI W/O LATE VENKATESH AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O. WARD NO. 36, BEHIND FIRE STATION, RAJESHWARI NAGAR, NEAR KOTTAL GUDI, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. 4. SHABARI S/O LATE VENKATESH AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN, VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.10.06 10:23:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 R/O. WARD NO. 36, BEHIND FIRE STATION, RAJESHWARI NAGAR, NEAR KOTTAL GUDI, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. 5. YERISWAMY S/O SUNKAPPA AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. OPP. TARANATH AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. 6. SMT. NAGAMANI D/O SMT. SUJATHA AND SUNKAPPA AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. OPP. TARANATH AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. 7. CHENNAMALLAPPA S/O THIMAPPA AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O. DOOR NO.1, WARD NO.16, INDIRANAGAR, BEHIND GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE, SHRIRAMPURAM COLONY, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. 8. U. THIPPESWAMY AGE. MAJOR, OCC. NOT KNOWN, R/O. PATEL NAGAR, NEAR M.G. AUTOMOBILES, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI 583101. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI ON IA NO.20 IN OS NO.335/2002 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.20, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 01.09.2025 passed in OS No.335/2002 by which an application filed by him for amendment of the plaint to insert additional pleadings was rejected. 2. The suit in OS No.335/2002 was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the encroachment on the western side in an area measuring North-South 12 feet and East-West 40 feet. The suit was decreed in part on 03.10.2007 enabling the plaintiff to receive the value of the encroachment portion. The plaintiff No.2 who had purchased the property challenged the Judgment in RA No.122/2007 which was allowed on 25.03.2008 and the case was remitted for reconsideration reserving liberty to the parties to amend the pleadings. Later, the plaint was amended and the daughter of the defended was impleaded as defendant No.2 as she has encroached the suit property on the northern side. The order impleading the defendant No.2 was challenged by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 defendant No.1 in WP No.31686/2008 which was dismissed in terms of the order dated 18.12.2008. Later, the defendant No.2 was also challenged the said order in WP No.60323/2009. This Court noticed that the application filed by the plaintiffs was not only impleading but also amendment of the pleading which was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs sought permission to file separate applications therefore, the Writ Petition was allowed and the order dated 27.11.2008 was quashed. The application filed for impleading was dismissed as withdrawn but, liberty was reserved for filing separate applications for impleading and amendment of the pleading. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution in terms of an order dated 16.06.2014. Later Misc. No.14/2014 was filed for restoration of the suit which was allowed on 31.07.2024. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.3 noticed that the defendant No.2 had encroached the suit property on the northern side and had put up illegal construction. He therefore, filed IA No.20 requesting the trial Court to permit him to amend the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 the plaint to justify the encroachment by the defendant No.2. The application was contested by defendant No.2. 5. The trial Court after considering the application and the objections there to, rejected it in terms of the order dated 01.09.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff No.3 is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff No.3 submits that the trial Court committed an error in not noticing that defendant No.2 was already impleaded as the legal heir of the defendant No.1. He contends that the plaintiffs had sought for declaration of title in respect of the entire property and therefore, were bound to implead all persons who were in unauthorized occupation of the suit property. He contends that the encroachment by the defendant No.2 over the northern side was during the pendency of the suit and hence, an amendment application to incorporate additional pleadings ought to have been permitted. He contends that allowing these additional pleadings to be brought on record did not change the nature of the suit and defendant No.2 did not suffer any hardship or difficulty and she would be entitle to file her additional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 statement. He contends that the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the application was belated. He submits that the trial Court could have given effect to the amendment from the date of the application which would have met the ends of justice. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for plaintiff No.3. 8. The suit was filed in the year 2002 and the suit was earlier decreed in part directing the defendant to pay the valuation of the encroached portion. This was challenged in RA No.122/2007 by the plaintiff No.2 which was allowed vide Judgment and decree dated 25.03.2008 and the suit was restored on the file of the trial Court. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed an application to implead the daughter of the defendant and also sought for various reliefs. The said application was allowed which was challenged by the defendant Smt.Sujata in WP No.31686/2008 which was dismissed in terms of an order 18.12.2008. Later, Smt.Nagamani also challenged the said order in WP No.60823/2009. This Court noticed that the plaintiffs could not have sought for two relifs namely, to implead - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 Smt.Nagamani and also to seek for reliefs against the said Smt.Nagamani in one application. 9. On the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that a fresh application would be filed, WP No.60323/2009 was allowed in terms of the order dated 19.09.2013. The defendant No.1 died and the legal heirs were brought on record. 10. Later, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.06.2014 and Civil Miscellaneous No.17/2014 was filed which was allowed on 31.07.2024. Following these order, a fresh application is now filed to amend the plaint to bring on record certain facts against the defendant No.2 in the suit, which was rejected in terms of the impugned order. 11. The trial Court while passing the impugned order observed that the plaintiffs had earlier claimed that the encroached portion was on the western side. However, plaintiff No.3 changed his version by seeking amendment to incorporate additional pleadings to contend defendant No.2 had encroached on the northern portion. However, plaintiff No.3 did not amend - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 the schedule mentioned in the plaint. It therefore held that amendment if brought on record would contradict the averments made in the plaint which would result in undoing what was done from the year 2002. It also held that the plaintiff No.3 was trying to make out a new case by amending the plaint. Therefore, it held that plaintiff cannot allowed to change the cause of action. 12. As stated above, this case had a checkered history in as much as there are more than four to five proceedings before various Courts. The plaintiff No.1 who initially filed a suit against the defendant No.1 alleged that defendant No.1 had encroached on the western portion. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit property, later he gifted it to plaintiff No.3 who came on record. The plaintiff No.3 alleged that the defendant No.2 had encroached on the northern portion. It is based on this that the plaintiff No.3 filed an application to incorporate additional pleadings in the plaint. If the defendant No.2 had encroached on the northern portion of the suit property, plaintiffs ought to have taken steps. The assertions made in the plaint and the assertions made in the amendment of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13623 WP No. 107358 of 2025 the plaint contradicted each other and therefore, the trial Court justified in not entertaining the application. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition lacks merit and it dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiffs to challenge the rejection of the application in an appeal that may be filed against any Judgment that may be passed in the suit. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE PJ, ct:vp LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4