- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 4422 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4918 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 4422/2020: BETWEEN: SMT. V. RENUKA W/O LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HENNAGARA VILLAGE AND POST JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A. VIJAYA KUMAR BHAT, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. KUNJAMMA @ AKKAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KACHANAYAKANA DODDI BEREKE HOBLI, HOSURU TALUK TAMIL NADU - 600 41. 2. MUNIRATHNA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O MUNKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KUMBALAHALLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT- 586 101. 3. SRI MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 R/AT KENCHAPPA BUILDING SRINIVAGILU EGIPURA MAIN ROAD, VIVEKNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047. 4. SRI RAVI S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KENCHAPPA BUILDING SRINIVAGILU EGIPURA MAIN ROAD VIVEKNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047. 5. SRI ANDREW F MANIS S/O MR F ABAIN MANIS AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT C/O J.B. MANIS VIRAT VILLA RAMAIAH COLONY BASAVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 037. 6. SRI GOPAKUMAR MENON ARCHITECT/PARTNER FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 7. SRI AJITH JAIN PARTNER FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 8. SRI RAJIV MAJMDHAR PARTNER FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE PARTNERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM CALLED PRAXIS ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS NO. 30/37, SHEETAJ KUNJ SRIRAM TEMPLE ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA BANGALORE - 560 095. 9. SMT. S. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 35, KSRP QUARTERS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 047. 10. SRI B. RAMESH S/O BABULESSWARAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 11. SMT. P. RIYA LAKSHMI W/O B RAMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.10 & 11 ARE R/AT NO.12, SRINIVAGILU MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 047. 12. K SEETHARAMA SHETTY S/O SHEENAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 927, FLOT NO. 302 3RD FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD, 4TH BLOCK KORAMANAGALA BANGALORE - 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK MESTA, ADV., FRO R-6 TO R-8; SRI S. KASHINAGALINGAM, ADV., FOR R-10 & R-11; R-1, R-3 & R-5 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED V/OS/D. 24.08.2021, 29.11.2021 & 04.08.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-4, R-12, R-2 & R-9 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IA FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.8061/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-44)DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2020 FOR REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.24 U/O VI RULE 17 CPC IN O.S.NO.8061/2004 VIDE ANNX-D ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH- 44) IN WP No. 4918/2020: BETWEEN: SMT. V. RENUKA W/O LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HENNAGARA VILLAGE AND POST JIGANI HOBLI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A. VIJAYA KUMAR BHAT, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. KUNJAMMA @ AKKAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KACHANAYAKANA DODDI BEREKE HOBLI, HOSURU TALUK TAMIL NADU - 600 41. 2. MUNIRATHNA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O MUNKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KUMBALAHALLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT- 586 101. 3. SRI MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT KENCHAPPA BUILDING SRINIVAGILU EGIPURA MAIN ROAD, VIVEKNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047. 4. SRI RAVI S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KENCHAPPA BUILDING SRINIVAGILU EGIPURA MAIN ROAD VIVEKNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047. 5. SRI ANDREW F MANIS S/O MR F ABAIN MANIS AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT C/O J.B. MANIS VIRAT VILLA RAMAIAH COLONY BASAVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 037. 6. SRI GOPAKUMAR MENON - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 ARCHITECT/PARTNER FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 7. SRI AJITH JAIN PARTNER FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 8. SRI RAJIV MAJMDHAR PARTNER FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE PARTNERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM CALLED PRAXIS ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS NO. 30/37, SHEETAJ KUNJ SRIRAM TEMPLE ROAD 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA BANGALORE - 560 095. 9. SMT. S. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRI KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 35, KSRP QUARTERS AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 047. 10. SRI B. RAMESH S/O BABULESSWARAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 11. SMT. P. RIYA LAKSHMI W/O B RAMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.10 & 11 ARE R/AT NO.12, SRINIVAGILU MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 047. 12. K SEETHARAMA SHETTY S/O SHEENAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 927, FLOT NO. 302 3RD FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD, 4TH BLOCK - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 KORAMANAGALA BANGALORE - 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. KASHINAGALINGAM, ADV., FOR R-10 & R-11; R-3 & R-4 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED V/OS/D. 29.11.2024, 21.03.2024 & 04.08.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-1, R-5, R-8, R-2 & R-9 IS H/S; V/O/D 01.04.2024 WP IS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R-12) THIS W.P FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.8061/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU )CCH-44)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.20.1.2020 FOR REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION IA NO.31 AND 32 FOR RECALLING AND RE OPENING IN O.S.NO.8061/2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGLAURU (CCH-44) THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL COMMON ORDER 1. These two writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise between the same parties and from the same proceedings and therefore they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.8061 of 2004 before the jurisdictional civil Court at Bangalore seeking the relief of declaration that she is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 schedule properties and also for mesne profits. Originally the suit was filed against defendants nos.1 to 6. Subsequently, defendants nos.7 to 13, who are the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule properties from the defendant nos.1 to 6 were impleaded as defendants no.7 to 13 in O.S.No.8061/2004. IA No.XXIV was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by the plaintiff for bringing on record the above subsequent facts including the sale of suit schedule property during the pendency of suit in favour of defendant nos.7 to 13 and additional prayers were sought to declare that the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants had not filed any objection opposing the prayer made in I.A.No.XXIV. The Trial Court vide order dated 03.01.2020 rejected I.A.No.XXIV filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.8061/2024 and being aggrieved by the same the petitioner/ plaintiff is before this Court in W.P.No.4422/2020. 4. The petitioner also had filed I.A.Nos.XXXI and XXXII in O.S.No.8061/2004 with a prayer to reopen the case and permit the plaintiffs to mark the documents, which were filed along with I.A.Nos.XXV and XXVI. Objections were not filed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 even to these two applications filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court vide the order impugned dated 20.01.2020 dismissed I.A.XXXI and XXXII and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / plaintiff is before this Court in W.P.No.4918/2020. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, defendant nos.7 to 13 were impleaded in the suit, after the trial had commenced. The trial Court has allowed I.A.Nos. XXV and XXVI and therefore there is no justification for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner in I.A.No.XXIV, I.A No.XXXI and XXXII. He submits that for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute involved between the parties, the prayer made in I.A.Nos.XXIV, XXXI and XXXII was required to be granted by the Trial Court. 6. The plaintiff is a widow and the suit is filed to declare that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share of her deceased husband in the suit schedule properties. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the original defendants had executed multiple sale deeds under which the suit schedule properties were sold and therefore the purchasers of the suit - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 schedule properties were impleaded as party defendants nos.7 to 13 to the suit. Defendant nos.11 to 13 were impleaded in the suit as per the order passed on I.A.No.XVI filed on behalf of the petitioner, which was allowed on 02.09.2017. I.A.No.XXIV was filed with a prayer to amend the suit by permitting the petitioner to incorporate the additional facts about the sale made in favour of the defendants nos.7 to 13 and additional prayer to declare the said sale deeds are not binding on the petitioner/ plaintiff was also sought. Along with I.A.No.XXIV two other applications in I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XVI were also filed by the plaintiff seeking permission of the trial Court to produce the sale deeds that were executed in favour of defendant nos.7 to 13, under which suit schedule properties were purchased by them. 7. The defendants had not opposed I.A.No.XXIV to XXVI filed by the petitioner. However, the trial court, vide the order dated 03.01.2020 has dismissed I.A.No.XXIV filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the same was filed belatedly but has allowed I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XXVI. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not a complete bar for - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 allowing the prayer made for amendment and if sufficient cause is shown by the plaintiff who has been diligently prosecuting the suit the Courts can grant his prayer made for amendment depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. In the case on hand, the purchasers were impleaded as defendant nos.7 to 13 after the trial had commenced in the suit and as observed earlier, defendant nos.11 to 13 were impleaded only on 02.09.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that I.A.No.XXIV was filed by the plaintiffs at a belated stage in the suit and there was delay on part of the petitioners in filing I.A.No.XXIV. Further, I am of the opinion that, since the prayer made in I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XXVI filed by the petitioners to permit her to produce certified copy of sale deed under which the defendant nos.7 to 13 had purchased the suit schedule properties were allowed, there was no justification on part of the Trial Court to reject I.A.No.XXIV since no purpose would be served in allowing I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XXVI without granting relief prayed for in I.A.No.XXIV. 9. I.A.No.XXXI and I.A.No.XXXII have been filed by the petitioners to reopen the case and permit her to mark the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 documents produced by her before the Court along with I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XXVI. The Trial Court vide its order dated 03.01.2020 has allowed I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XXVI observing that no objections have been filed to the said applications and no prejudice would be caused to either parties, if prayer made in I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XXVI are granted. As observed hereinabove, I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XXVI were filed by the petitioners seeking permission of the Trial Court to produce certified copy of the sale deeds under which the defendant nos.7 to 13 had purchased the suit properties from the original defendant. Therefore, having allowed I.A.No.XXV and I.A.No.XXVI, if the prayer made in I.A.No.XXXI and I.A.No.XXXII to permit the petitioner to mark the said documents which have been permitted to be produced is not granted there, the case of the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced. Therefore, the Trial Court was also not justified in rejecting XXXI and XXXII filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the following:- ORDER Writ petitions are allowed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41504 WP No. 4422 of 2020 C/W WP No. 4918 of 2020 The order dated 03.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.XXIV and the order dated 20.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.XXXI and I.A.No.XXXII in O.S.No.8061/2024 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore are set aside and consequently, the prayer made in I.A.No.XXIV, I.A.No.XXXI and I.A.No.XXXII is allowed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26