- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6411 WP No. 102417 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102417 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. FARIDA W/O RASUL PATEL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O JAMADAR PLOTS, 2ND LANE, NIPANI-591 237. TQ. NIPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALAGOUDA.A.PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI NINGANGOUDA S/O BABU KHADE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAGALA VILLAGE- 591 225. TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O NINGANGOUDA KHADE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KANAGALA VILLAGE- 591 225. TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SOUMYA D/O NINGANGOUDA KHADE, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O KANAGALA VILLAGE- 591 225. TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SANDEEP S/O NINGANGOUDA KHADE, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O KANAGALA VILLAGE- 591 225. TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6411 WP No. 102417 of 2022 5. SINDHU D/O NINGANGOUDA KHADE, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O KANAGALA VILLAGE- 591 225. TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ.S.BALLOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R1-5) 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.Balagouda A.Patil., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivaraj S.Balloli., counsel for respondents 1 to 5 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated:27.01.2022 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sankeshwar on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.217/2013 vide Annexure-A. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6411 WP No. 102417 of 2022 4. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in 2013. Defendants 3 to 5 filed a detailed written statement on 18.12.2013. It is pivotal to note that in paragraph No.10 of the written statement the defendants 3 to 5 have clearly stated that an Original Suit was for partition in O.S.No.221/2012. This was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Strangely, the plaintiff moved an application after lapse of almost seven years to amend the plaint. Despite the knowledge of the averments, the plaintiff was not diligent in moving an application at an appropriate point in time. The Trial Court in extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the application. In my view the rejection is just and proper. The reason is simple. As already noted above, a detailed written statement was filed and it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff about the suit and also the allotment of the shares. However, for the best reasons known to the plaintiff, she kept quite and she did not diligently moved an application for amendment at earlier point in time. There is an inordinate delay of almost seven years. Moreover, the proposed amendment would completely change the nature of the suit. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper. I find no grounds to interfere with the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6411 WP No. 102417 of 2022 same. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,RH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12