- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48781 WP No. 6379 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. 6379 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI M.T. SATYANARAYANA RAO DEAD BY LRS. 1a SMT. UMABAI W/O LATE M.T. SATYANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO. 2822/A HALLADAKERE LASHKAR MOHALLA MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001. 1b SRI M.N. SANTHOSH KUMAR PAWAR S/O LATE M.T. SATYANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.2822/A, HALLADAKERE LASHKAR MOHALLA MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001. 1c SRI SANDESH KUMAR PAWAR S/O LATE M.T. SATYANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.2822/A HALLADAKERE, LASHKAR MOHALLA MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RUDRAPPA P, ADV., P-1(a TO c)) AND: 1. SRI N. JINESHA S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.589, DEWANS ROAD, CHAMARAJA MHALLA MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 024. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48781 WP No. 6379 of 2022 2. ALTHAFF AHAMED AGED 50 YEARS R/AT SHOP NO.1327/1, SRI GARADI KERI ANJAYANASWAMY TEMPLE BEHIND S.B.M. MAI RAOD, LASHKAR MHALLA, MYSORE DITRICT - 570 001. 3. SRI SATISHCHANDRA S/O MURARILALJI, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT SHOP NO.1327/1, SRI GARDI KERI ANJAYANSWAMY TEMPLE, BEHIND S.B.M. MAI ROAD, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRINCE ISAC, ADV., FORO R-1 TO R-2; SRI ADARSH GANGA, ADV., FOR R-3; NOTICE TO R-4 D/W V/O DTD:04.11.2025) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 24.11.2021 ON IA NO.16 VIDE ANNX-E PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN O.S.NO.1820/2010. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set- aside the order dated 24.11.2021 passed on IA No.16 in OS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48781 WP No. 6379 of 2022 No.1820/2010 by the Court of VII Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed OS No.1820/2010 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Mysuru with a prayer to declare that he is entitled to succeed as a legatee of deceased M. S. Srinivasa Rao under the Will dated 04.11.1995, direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also has sought consequential relief of permanent injunction, damages, mesne profits etc. The contesting defendants have filed their written statement and have opposed the suit claim. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court had framed issues and when the matter was at the stage of addressing final arguments, IA No.16 was filed on behalf of defendant No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to amend his written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed IA No.16 and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48781 WP No. 6379 of 2022 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Section 21 of CPC, submits that any objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction is required to be taken at the initial stage. The Trial Court was therefore not justified in permitting the amendment and he submits that in view of the order impugned, additional issues are now required to be framed and parties are required to lead evidence afresh. IA No.16 was filed at a belated stage and Trial Court ought to have rejected the same. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued in support of the order impugned. 6. A perusal of the plaint in OS No.1820/2010 would go to show that suit schedule property originally belonged to one Surya Narayana Rao and after his death, his son M.S. Srinivasa Rao had succeeded to the said property. Plaintiff has sought a declaration in the present suit that he is entitled to succeed as a legatee of deceased M. S. Srinivasa Rao under his last Will dated 04.11.1995. In addition to the aforesaid relief of declaration, certain other reliefs including the relief of possession of the suit schedule property has been claimed. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48781 WP No. 6379 of 2022 petitioner was therefore required to pay Court Fee on the plaint as provided under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958' for short) 7. Perusal of the valuation slip filed by the petitioner in OS No.1820/2010 would go to show that the first prayer was valued as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act of 1958 but Court Fee of Rs.25/- has been paid having valued property at Rs.1,000/-, even though Court Fee on the plaint was supposed to be computed on the market value of the property. Objection with regard to proper valuation of the suit and payment of Court Fee can be raised at any stage of the suit and a person who has not paid the applicable Court Fee cannot be granted the relief sought for in the suit. In addition to the objection with regard to valuation of the suit and payment of Court Fee, additionally an objection with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction is also raised in the proposed amendment. 8. A reading of Section 21 of CPC makes it very clear that the said provision of law also provides that the Appellate Court or the Revisional Court shall not entertain an objection with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48781 WP No. 6379 of 2022 regard to pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, unless such an objection is raised at the Court of first instance, at the earliest possible opportunity. However, the said provision does not completely bar the Trial Court to consider the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, raised even at a later stage. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing IA No.16 filed in OS No.1820/2010. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held that Courts should be liberal while considering application for amendment of written statement, since the hardship that would be caused to the other side would be minimum. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29