- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 24810 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HONNAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAIAH, D/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 11. 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MALLANAPALYA, MARASANDRA POST, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK. 3. SRI RAJANNA S/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT ISSWAMIPALYA, HAMLET OF GOWRAPURA, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. 4. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O MURTHAPPA, D/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT THIPPPAPURA VILLAGE, AREHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK. 6. SRI HONNAGANGAIAH S/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT ISSWAMIPALYA, HAMLET OF GOWRAPURA, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. 7. SMT. HONNAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. 8. SRI MARIYAPPA S/O THOPAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT ISSWAMIPALYA, HAMLET OF GOWRAPURA, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. 9. SRI NAGARAJU S/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT ISSWAMIPALYA, HAMLET OF GOWRAPURA, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 10. SMT. ANASUYA W/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT JANATA COLONY, MADAVARA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 11. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANJULA K.S, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI. GANGARANGAIAH S/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 111. 2. SRI. THOPAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR SMT. GANGANARASAMMA W/O LATE THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111. 3. SRI. VASANTH KUMAR S/O HANUMANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 4. SRI. KUMAR S/O HANUMANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 5. SRI. MURTHY S/O HANUMANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 6. SRI. PRAKASH S/O HANUMANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 7. SMT. RADHAMMA D/O HANUMANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 8. SMT. NEETHA D/O HANUMANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.138, 15TH A CROSS, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE, MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SOMARAJU A, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY DISMISSING I.A. NO. 36 FILED BY THE R1 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF C.P.C. IN O.S. NO. 217/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NELAMANGALA, BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/09/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE -F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant Nos.2 to 12 are 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 27.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.XXXVI in O.S.No.217 of 2009 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.217 of 2009 (old No. 832 of 2004) is filed before the jurisdictional Court at Nelamangala by respondent no.1 herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The contesting defendants have entered appearance in the said suit and have filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. I.A.No.XXXVI is filed on behalf of the plaintiff Under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection. The trial court vide the order impugned has allowed I.ANo.XXXVI and being aggrieved by the same, defendant nos.2 to 12 are before this Court in this writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the proposed amendment, an attempt is made by the plaintiff to withdraw certain admissions made regarding the relationship between the parties. The same is not permissible. She submits that application is filed at a belated stage and this is the third application filed to amend the plaint. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in allowing the application. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 - plaintiff has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in allowing the application. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Suit is filed by respondent no.1 herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In paragraph no.4 of the plaint, the relationship between the parties to the suit is mentioned and it is specifically stated that the plaintiff and defendants have jointly inherited the suit schedule properties and the daughters of Sri Thopaiah (Defendant no.1) were all married and they are - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 residing with their respective husband. In the proposed amendment, a prayer is made to delete certain portion of the pleadings in paragraph no.4 of the plaint and to incorporate the proposed pleading. 7. A reading of the proposed amendment to paragraph no.4 of plaint would go to show that the plaintiff intends to make out a new case by withdrawing certain admissions made with regard to the relationship between the parties. The same is impermissible and the trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Plaintiff cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stand. 8. Based on the rival pleadings, issues were framed and parties have already led evidence before the trial Court on the said issues. At this stage, the prayer made to amend paragraph no.4 by withdrawing certain averments in the said paragraph and incorporating certain fresh contentions cannot be permitted. 9. Insofar as the prayer made to incorporate paragraph no.5(a), 5(b) and 5(c), immediately after paragraph - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 no.5 in the plaint is concerned, the proposed paragraphs only seek to introduce certain pleadings with regard to certain left out properties in the schedule of the plaint in O.S.No.217 of 2009 and additionally a prayer is also made to amend the schedule of the plaint by incorporating Item No.23 and Item No. 24 properties immediately after Item No.22 in the plaint schedule. Plaintiff has also prayed to amend the prayer column(a) by incorporating word "1/2 share" in place of "1/6th" share and to include a new prayer wherein subsequent sale deed executed by defendants is questioned. In my considered opinion, if the said amendment is allowed, the same would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the defendants are always at liberty to file additional written statement opposing the prayer made by plaintiff. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action of the suit. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court insofar as it relates to permitting the plaintiff to incorporate paragraph no.5(a) to 5(c) immediately after paragraph no.5, amend the prayer column as sought for and also to incorporate two additional properties in the schedule of the plaint is justified. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47469 WP No. 24810 of 2023 10. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 27.09.2023 passed on I.A.No.XXXVI in O.S.No.217 of 2009 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala is confirmed insofar as it relates to permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint by incorporating paragraph no.5(a) to 5(c) immediately after paragraph no.5 in the plaint, amend the prayer column as sought for and also permitting the plaintiff to incorporate Item No.23 and Item No.24 properties in the plaint schedule immediately after Item No.22 and the impugned order insofar as it relates to permitting the plaintiff to amend paragraph no.4 of the plaint is set aside. (iii) Since the suit is of the year 2004 the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16