- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6064 WP No. 106994 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 106994 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PAVADEPPA S/O. RANGAPPA GOGERI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SRI. MARUTI S/O. BASAPPA TEGUR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SRI. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA MUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SRI. CHANDRU S/O. BASAPPA TEGUR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SRI. DURAGAPPA S/O. LAXMAN SAVATAGI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 6. SMT. SHANKRAVVA W/O. AJJAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 7. SMT. SHOBAVVA W/O. NAGAYYA PRABHAYYANAMATH, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 15:15:05 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6064 WP No. 106994 of 2018 AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KURTAKOTI, TQ AND DIST: GADAG. 8. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. RUDRAYYA YARAGAMBALIMATH, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HALLIGERI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. 9. SMT. MANJAVVA W/O. BASAYYA CHIKKAMATH, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KELAGERI, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. 10. SRI. NAGAYYA S/O. AJJAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 11. SRI. BASAYYA S/O. AJJAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 12. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. RAMAPPA RATHOD AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 13. SRI. NAGANAGOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 14. SRI. LADASAB S/O. PEERASAB TALLUR AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6064 WP No. 106994 of 2018 15. SRI. ASHOK S/O. MAHADEVAPPA KATTIMANI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. PATADAYYA INAMADAR AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SRI. SHIVANAND S/O. PATADAYYA INAMADAR AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SRI. GANGADAR S/O. PATADAYYA INAMADAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SMT. KASHAVVA W/O. SHIVALINGAYYA CHARANTIMATH, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GALAGI-HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SRI. VEERAYYA S/O. SHIDDRAMAYYA HASAVIMATH, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIJJUR, POST KOGANUR, TQ: SIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 6. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. VEERAYYA HASAVIMATH, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIJJUR, POST KOGANUR, TQ: SIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6064 WP No. 106994 of 2018 7. SMT. VANITA W/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TABAKADAHONNALLI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 8. SMT. SUJATA D/O. VEERAYYA HASAVIMATH AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: LAXMI APARTMENT, KAREMMA TEMPLE, OPPOSITE, RAJATAGIRI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD. 9. SMT. VIDYA D/O. VEERAYYA HASAVIMATH AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: LAXMI APARTMENT, KAREMMA TEMPLE, OPPOSITE, RAJATAGIRI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD. 10. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O. NARAYANA HOGAL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GALAGI HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R7 AND R10 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R8 AND R9 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.VI IN O.S.NO.82/2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALAGHATAGI VIDE ANNEXURE-"F" AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6064 WP No. 106994 of 2018 ORAL ORDER This is a defendants captioned petition assailing the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kalaghatagi on I.A.No.VI thereby permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: Respondents/plaintiffs have instituted a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in O.S.No.82/2013. When the matter was set down for evidence of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs having noticed that there is an error in mentioning the boundaries to the suit schedule property filed an application in I.A.No.VI under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. requesting the Court to permit them to amend the boundaries which are already reflected in the plaint. Trial - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6064 WP No. 106994 of 2018 Court exercising its discretion has allowed the amendment, which is now under challenge. 4. Upon a careful examination of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amendment of pleadings, particularly when it pertains to typographical errors or inaccuracies in the description of boundaries, ought to be approached with a liberal and pragmatic outlook. The primary objective of procedural law is to facilitate the adjudication of the real issues in controversy, and technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice. In the present case, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs is essentially to rectify certain errors in the pleadings, specifically with regard to the boundaries of the suit schedule property. 5. This Court is of the view that such rectification, being of a typographical or clerical nature, does not in any manner cause substantial prejudice to the defendants. On the contrary, the defendants are well within their rights to address any such amendment by filing an additional - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6064 WP No. 106994 of 2018 written statement and raising appropriate defences concerning the boundaries. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the suit is still at a nascent stage, with the trial not having progressed significantly. The amendment application was moved at a point when the plaintiffs’ evidence had just commenced, thereby ensuring that the defendants are neither caught by surprise nor deprived of an opportunity to respond effectively. 6. In view of the above, this Court reiterates that typographical or clerical errors in pleadings,more so those relating to the identification or description of property boundaries,should be permitted to be corrected through amendment, in the interest of justice and fair play. Such amendments serve to clarify the real dispute between the parties and ensure that the matter is decided on its merits rather than on technical grounds. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence, writ petition is dismissed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6064 WP No. 106994 of 2018 Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file additional written statement, if any. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CLK Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22