- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48844 WP No. 8729 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. 8729 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. S. MEGHANA D/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO. 1056, 6TH MAIN 12TH CROSS, SHARADADEVINAGAR MYSORE - 570 022. 2. SMT. ARUNA W/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO. 1056, 6TH MAIN 12TH CROSS, SHARADADEVINAGAR MYSORE - 570 022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PANCHAM R.D, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O. LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3 SRI. RAVI S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. SMT. JAYANTHI D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 3. SRI ANANDA S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48844 WP No. 8729 of 2022 ALL ARE R/AT NO.368, C BLOCK 10TH MAIN, J. P. NAGAR MYSORE - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. SHRIDHARA, ADV., FOR R-1; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2, R-3 H/S, V/O DTD 01.04.2023; R-2, R-3 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.29.11.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF III ADDL SR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MYSORE ON IA NO.VI FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF NO.1 UNDER ORDER VI RILE 17 R.W SECTION 151OF CPC INO .S.NO.317/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, 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 ORDER 1. Plaintiffs 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 29.11.2021 passed on IA-6 in O.S.No.317/2015 by the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.317/2015 was filed by the petitioners herein/plaintiffs before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Mysuru seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48844 WP No. 8729 of 2022 suit schedule property. The contesting defendants have filed written statement in the said suit opposing the suit claim. IA-6 was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.317/2015 with a prayer to permit the plaintiffs to amend the body of the plaint, the prayer column and the schedule given to the plaint. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the suit in O.S.No.317/2015 was initially filed by plaintiff no.1/petitioner no.1 who was a minor represented by her mother and natural guardian - Smt. Aruna. Subsequently, after the original plaintiff attained the age of majority, the guardianship of her mother was discharged and her mother was impleaded as plaintiff no.2 in O.S.No.317/2015. Thereafter, IA-6 was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.317/2015 with a prayer to amend the plaint in O.S.No.317/2015. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48844 WP No. 8729 of 2022 5. Perusal of the proposed amendment would go to show that since plaintiff no.2 - Smt. Aruna who is the mother of plaintiff no.1 was subsequently impleaded to the suit, necessary amendments are sought in the genealogy tree of the plaint and also in paragraph nos.3 & 4 of the plaint. After plaintiff no.2 was impleaded in the suit, the plaintiffs now intend to delete paragraph no.5 in the plaint and incorporate proposed paragraph no.5 in place of original paragraph no.5. 6. The aforesaid amendment sought for by the plaintiffs do not in any way change the nature of the suit or the cause of action of the suit. 7. However, the prayer to incorporate proposed paragraph no.5(a) and also to incorporate an additional prayer immediately after prayer no.(a) and also to incorporate an additional property in the schedule to the plaint, would virtually amount to changing the nature of the suit and also the cause of action for the suit. The proposed amendment in paragraph no.5(a) is with regard to a new property which is now sought to be included in the suit schedule property as Item no.2 and a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48844 WP No. 8729 of 2022 prayer is also now sought to be made in respect of the said property to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of the said property and that defendants have no share in the same. In my considered opinion, the proposed amendment to the aforesaid effect is not permissible as the same would not only change the nature of the suit, but the cause of action would also differ. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in the application to the said extent is liable to be rejected and has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the following order: 8. The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed on IA-6 in O.S.No.317/2015 by the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru, to the extent it rejects the amendment sought for in Sl. Nos.1 to 9 of IA-6, is set aside, and is confirmed in so far as other proposed amendments are concerned. Consequently, the amendment sought for in Sl. Nos.1 to 9 in IA-6, is granted. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK