- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48761 WP No. 4081 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 4081 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHIVAIAH S/O ALTE DYAVAIAH @ DYAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 2. SRI. KUMAR @ DANPAL S/O MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 3. SRI. SWAMY @ SOMASHEKAR S/O MALAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 4. SRI. HARISH KUMAR S/O SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 5. SRI. VISHWANATH S/O SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 6. SRI. MAHALINGA S/O SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O MADIHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI SHIVAIAH @ YELLE SHIVANNA S/O JAVARAIAH Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48761 WP No. 4081 of 2022 SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS. 2. SRI M.S. JAGADISH S/O SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 3. SRI M.S. LOKESH S/O SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 4. SRI SHIVANNA @ SHIVAIAH S/O LATE DYAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 5. SRI MOHAN KUMAR S/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 6. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE HAVALAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. ALL RESPONDENTS ARE R/O MADIHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHCHANDRA MOWAR, ADV., FOR R-2 TO R-6; R-2, R-3, R-5 ARE LRs OF DECEASED R-1, V/O DTD 18.11.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-E THAT THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BELUR ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.164/2018 ON IA NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48761 WP No. 4081 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer to set aside the order dated 10.12.2021 passed on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.164 of 2018 by Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.164 of 2018 before the jurisdictional civil Court at Belur in Hassan District seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants have filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. After the issues were framed in the suit, I.A.No.V was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by contesting defendants by filing objection. The trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.No.V and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48761 WP No. 4081 of 2022 151 of CPC plaintiffs have sought to incorporate certain additional facts in paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint. A reading of the proposed amendment would go to show that the plaintiffs intend to elaborate and explain the averments made in the plaint and the proposed amendment in paragraph nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint in no way changes the nature of the suit nor does it amount to withdrawal of any admission made by the plaintiff in the plaint. In addition to the aforesaid, there is also a prayer to amend the schedule of the plaint by incorporating the word "Sri Onti Kattaiah deity's idol" instead of the word "Onti kattamma Temple" found in the schedule. Even the said proposed amendment does not in any way change the nature of the suit nor the cause of action for the suit. It is trite that Court should normally be liberal while considering an application for amendment of pleadings so as to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIC V. SANJEEV BUILDERS & ANOTHER - (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1128 has held that Courts should avoid hyper technical approach while considering application for amendment of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48761 WP No. 4081 of 2022 pleadings. In the present case, the trial Court has virtually considered the merits of proposed amendment which is not permissible. It is needless to state that defendants are entitled to file this additional written statement, in the event, the plaintiffs are permitted to amend the plaint. The present application is filed even prior to plaintiffs' leading evidence in the present case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.No.V filed in O.S.No.164 of 2018. 6. Accordingly the following :- ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 10.12.2021 passed on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.164 of 2018 is set aside and consequently the prayer made in I.A.No.V is granted. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28