- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14136 WP No. 107456 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.107456 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GADIGEPPA S/O. BALAPPA HUCHCHAPPANAVAR, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: SHANTAWWA W/O. GADIGEPPA HUCHCHAPPANAVAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587201. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER 8-9-2025 PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMAKHANDI IN O.S.NO.77/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE- G AND RESTORE THE SUIT ON THE FILE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14136 WP No. 107456 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the trial Court, which permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Then moved an application for amendment contending that she has ½ share in the suit schedule property. It is his further submission that the suit is filed against the defendant-husband and she made a clear statement that she had no issues from the marriage. 3. Later, in the application seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, she states that she had a son from the marriage; and son died 15 days after the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14136 WP No. 107456 of 2025 birth and she being the mother inherited the property of the son. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the earlier plaint, no such statement is made and the statement that she has a son from the marriage is made for the first time. It is also his further submission that plaintiff has made a categorical statement that she has no issues from the first marriage with the defendant/petitioner. Thus, the trial Court could not have granted liberty to file the fresh suit. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 6. The earlier suit is filed for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. Later, the plaint is amended to contend that the plaintiff has ½ share along with the defendant-husband. Now, plaintiff seeks leave of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14136 WP No. 107456 of 2025 the Court to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit on the premise that she had a son from the marriage and son died 15 days’ after his birth and she inherited the property of her son. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the liberty granted would nullify the admission in the pleading in the earlier suit, this Court is of the view that the statement made in the earlier suit is not nullified. The petitioner-defendant can still rely on the said statement that she had no issues from the marriage. 8. It is for the plaintiff in the second suit, if filed, to explain as to why she made a statement that she had no issues from the marriage. If the plaintiff is unable to explain and provide satisfactory evidence relating to her statement in the earlier suit that she had no issues from the marriage and if she is unable to establish that she had a son from the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14136 WP No. 107456 of 2025 marriage, suit claiming right as a successor of her son, would fail. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any prejudice being caused to the petitioner in terms of the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The petition is dismissed with the above mentioned observations. 11. It is made clear that petitioner's contention or the respondent’s contention is not adjudicated. Same shall be adjudicated in any suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent and if such suit is filed, it is for the plaintiff to prove that she had a son from the marriage. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24