- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.14497 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT HAMSAVENI W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT ARADESHANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA N R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT NARAYANAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.155, “M” BLOCK ASHOK NAGAR POLICE QUARTERS YERAGUNE PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 047 2 . SRI MUNINANJAPPA S/O SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.155, “M” BLOCK, ASHOK NAGAR POLICE QUARTERS, YERAGUNE PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 047. 3 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O HANUMANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ® - 2 - R/AT LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJAGATTA POST, KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 4 . SRI HANUMANTHA S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT ARADESHANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 5 . SMT. MANJAMMA W/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT ARADESHANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 6 . KUM ROOPA D/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT ARADESHANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 7 . SMT. RUKUMINI W/O HANUMANTHAPPA @ MANJANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT 51ST CROSS, WARD NO.22 RAJAJINAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 010. 8 . KUM. CHAITRA D/O LATE SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT VEERAPURA VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. - 3 - 9 . CHI MADAN S/O LATE SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT VEERAPURA VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHITHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 AND R-7; V/O DT:27.08.2021, NOTICE TO R3, R8,R9 –STANDS WAIVED; R5 AND R6 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DT:2.12.2021 STEPS TO BRING LRS OF DECEASED R4 – STANDS WAIVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORATI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN O.S.NO.760/2008 DATED 21.04.2021 ON I.A.NO.7, FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 21.04.2021 on I.A.No.VII under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.760/2008 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli. - 4 - 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 9 respectively before the Court below. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession against the respondents/defendants. The plaintiff is the younger sister of the respondents - defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7. The plaintiff and all the defendants are the legal heirs of late Muninanjappa. Apart from the plaintiff and the defendants, there are no legal heirs. After the demise of Muninanjappa, his wife Smt.Nanjamma was looking after the family and she also expired on 25.01.1998. Muninanjappa and Nanjamma had 2 sons and 6 daughters and out of 8 children, 3 died, i.e., elder son Ashwathappa died on 20.06.1989. Smt. Radhamma and Saraswati also died. 4. Muninanjappa during his life time had acquired and gained many properties in various survey numbers. He acquired the right, title and interest over all the part and - 5 - parcel of the property mentioned schedule of the plaint before the Trial Court. The entire property was belonging to Late A.Chennappa and all revenue records stood in the name of Muninanjappa after the death of A.Chennappa. After the death of Muninanjappa, revenue records stood in the name of Nanjamma. In 1989, the said Nanjamma and defendant No.5 shared the schedule property by means of an unregistered partition deed dated 26.11.1989 and divided the properties without the consent, concurrence and approval of the plaintiff and the other defendants. When the plaintiff asked for partition, the defendants refused and this led to filing of the suit seeking for partition and separate possession. 5. During the pendency of the said suit the petitioner had filed an I.A. No.7 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint in prayer column and incorporate the details of the schedule properties and to add boundaries of the suit schedule properties. - 6 - 6. The Trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff has filed the application after lapse of 11 years. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos.1, 2 & 7. Respondent Nos.5 & 6 served and unrepresented. Notice to respondent Nos.3, 8 & 9 stands waived. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Trial Court has not looked into the amendment sought regarding column and boundaries of the suit schedule properties but rejected I.A.No.7 on the ground that it has been filed after the lapse of 11 years. 9. It was also contended that the Trial Court without considering the pleadings and documents produced by the petitioners and by not considering the law position that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow the party to amend his pleadings. - 7 - 10. It was also contended that the Trial Court on the ground that plaintiff having changed the advocate wanted to amend the plaint and the plaintiff has not produced any document to prove or show the proposed boundaries are the actual boundaries, rejected the application and the same is not sustainable under law. It was further contended that the order of the Trial Court is illegal, perverse and arbitrary. 11. In the case of Nitaben Dinesh Patel v. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel reported in (2021) 20 SCC 210, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: 10. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Therefore, if some facts have come to the knowledge subsequently and subsequent to the commencement of trial, may be during the course of trial and if it is found that it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, on a fair reading of Order 6 Rule 17CPC, such an application for amendment can be allowed even after the trial has commenced. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the factum of actual marriage on - 8 - 14-12-2006 came to the knowledge of the appellant wife when the marriage certificate was produced during the cross-examination of the respondent husband and immediately thereafter the application (Ext. 281) for amendment was made. 12. In the case of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: 71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 13. It can be observed from the impugned order that the Trial Court has found that the plaintiff has changed the advocate and as new advocate wanted the renovation, the application has been filed. 14. It can be further observed that the Trial Court has observed that the earlier advocate of the plaintiff should have taken all the contentions in the pleadings and found that I.A. No.7 has been filed after the lapse of 11 years. - 9 - 15. The Trial Court has further found that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to prove or to show the proposed boundaries are the actual boundaries to the suit schedule properties and ultimately concluded that for the want of production of relevant documents to show the correct boundaries, I.A. cannot be allowed and thereby finally rejected the I.A.No.7. 16. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, on perusal of the material on record and the impugned order dated 21.04.2021 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.760/2008 and relying on the above citations, it is observed that the present case is filed seeking partition and separate possession against the defendants, the amendments sought to the plaint for adding certain prayers and also to amend the boundaries of the schedule properties which are not properly submitted at the time of filing the suit because of lack of knowledge. In view of the above circumstances of the case for effective adjudication with regard to the prayer portion to add (ai), (aii) and (aiii) Para a and further, sought relief - 10 - to add the boundaries of the schedule properties ie., Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment. 17. In view of the above circumstances, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Therefore, if some facts have come to the knowledge subsequently and subsequent to the commencement of trial, may be during the course of trial and if it is found that it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, on a fair reading of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, such an application for amendment can be allowed even after the trial has commenced. 18. In view of the above discussions, the present case appears to that the proposed amendment should not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in allowing the proposed amendment. Hence, this Court - 11 - intends to interfere in the impugned order dated 21.04.2021 and the same is hereby set-aside. 19. The writ petition is allowed with the following directions; (a) The impugned order dated 21.04.2021 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.760/2008 is hereby set-aside. (b) The petitioner is directed to amend the plaint as per I.A.No.VII. (c) In view of the amendment, the defendant is directed to file the additional written statement, if at all required. (d) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible ie., within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GH