- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4524 WP No. 100631 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 100631 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O NINGAPPA HUGAR, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGIHALLI PLOT, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581 101. 2. SHIVASHANKRAPPA S/O BASAVARAJ HUGAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGIHALLI PLOT, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI- 581 101. 3. BHARMAPPA S/O NINGAPPA HUGAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGIHALLI PLOT, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI- 581 101. 4. VEERAPPA S/O BHARMAPPA HUGAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGIHALLI PLOT, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI- 581 101. 5. SHIVAYOGI S/O BHARMAPPA HUGAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGIHALLI PLOT, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI- 581 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVASAI.M.PATIL., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4524 WP No. 100631 of 2025 AND: LINGARAJ S/O BASAVARAJ HUGAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGIHALLI PLOT, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581 101. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Shivasai M.Patil., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person. 2. Notice to the respondent was ordered on 29.01.2025. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC., Hanagal on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.280/2016 vide Annexure-G. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4524 WP No. 100631 of 2025 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 5. The short facts are these: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a relief of perpetual injunction contending that the suit property is an ancestral property. After service of the suit summons, the written statement was filed. The issues were framed and the matter was set down for evidence. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No.III under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of plaint. The objections were filed. However, the Trial Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 allowed the application. This order that is called in question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is perverse and illegal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4524 WP No. 100631 of 2025 Next, he submits that the Trial Court has failed to notice that the evidence was commenced and the documents were marked. Hence, allowing the amendment application after the evidence is not permissible as per the amended CPC. A further submission is made that the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff is in the nature of introduction of all together new a case and the same is also contrary to law. Counsel vehemently contends that the proposed amendment is contrary to the facts pleaded in the plaint and therefore, the Trial Court has erred in allowing the amendment application. Lastly, he submits that, viewed from any angle, the amendment order is bad in law. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 8. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to allowing the amendment application. Suffice it to note that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4524 WP No. 100631 of 2025 perpetual injunction. It is pivotal to note that evidence was commenced and the documents were marked and at that point in time, the plaintiff moved an application seeking amendment of the plaint. The application is furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-D. A perusal of the same reflects that the plaintiff intends to incorporate paragraph Nos.2(a) to 2(f). The true copy of the plaint and written statement are also furnished along with the writ petition and the same are marked as Annexures-A and B. A careful perusal of the same would reflect that the averments made in the plaint and the defence would suffice to decide the controversy between the parties. Moreover, the proposed amendment is not an explanation but it is in the nature of introduction of altogether a new case. The Trial Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and has mechanically allowed the amendment application. Hence, this Court deems it proper to quash the impugned order. 9. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The impugned order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC., Hanagal on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.280/2016 vide - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4524 WP No. 100631 of 2025 Annexure-G is quashed. Consequently, the amendment application in I.A. No.3 is rejected. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,RH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 79