- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1642 WP No. 100383 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.100383 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHIVAGOUDA KATIGOUDA PATIL AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHOJ, TQ. NIPANI-591263, DIST. BELAGAVI 2. SRI. TATYASAB KATIGOUDA PATIL AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHOJ, TQ. NIPANI-591263, DIST. BELAGAVI …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT SUREKHA NABHIRAJ RAYNADE AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BHOJ, TQ. NIPANI-591263, DIST. BELAGAVI …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS D/W V/O DATED 28.01.25) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED. 20/11/2024 PASSED BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NIPPANI IN O.S. NO. 381/2022 IN ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2025.02.04 15:45:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1642 WP No. 100383 of 2025 SO FAR AS I.A. NO. 2 (THEREBY ALLOWING THE I.A. NO. 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W 151 OF CPC) VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to respondent is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Call for the relevant records. b. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Nippani in O.S.No.381/2022 in so far as I.A.No.2 (thereby allowing the I.A.No.2 filed under order 6 rule 17 R/w 151 of CPC) vide Annexure-E. c. Consequently reject the I.A.No.2 filed under 6 rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC filed by the respondent. d. Pass such other order/ orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice. 3. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.381/2022 seeking for permanent injunction. When the matter - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1642 WP No. 100383 of 2025 was posted for evidence of the respondent-plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint. 4. By way of the said amendment, Para 3A was sought to be introduced contending that the plaintiff and her deceased father became the absolute owners and in furtherance thereof, a further prayer seeking for declaration that the plaintiff and her deceased father are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property was sought for. The Trial Court allowed the said application vide its order dated 20.11.2024. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by way of the amendment, the character and nature of the suit has been changed inasmuch as initially the suit was one for permanent injunction and now has undergone a change to a declaratory suit. The same ought not to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1642 WP No. 100383 of 2025 have been allowed by the Trial Court and as such, he submits that the above Writ Petition is required to be allowed. 6. Having gone through the papers, it is seen that by way of the amendment, the parties to the suit have not undergone a change. It is only a suit of injunction which has now been sought to be converted into a suit for declaration of title with respect to the same property which is subject matter of the original suit. Thus, neither the parties having undergone a change nor the property having undergone change. I am of the considered opinion that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the allowing of the amendment is proper and correct. 7. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order is not well reasoned. Though the order could have been better reasoned, and more reasons could have been attributed in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1642 WP No. 100383 of 2025 said order, I am of the considered opinion that the sum and substance of the order allowing the amendment application cannot be faulted with. There being no infirmity, the Writ Petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35