- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4346 WP No. 102348 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 102348 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VEERAYYA S/O RUDRAYYA KITTURMATH AGED: 60 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/AT: KITTUR NOW AT JAYADEV NAGAR, HAVERI, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI. 2. SRI. SHIVABASSAYYA S/O RUDRAYYA KITTURMATH, AGED: 50 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/AT: KITTUR NOW AT ANGOL “SHIVAKRUPA CLINIC”, KITTURMATH HOSPITAL BEHIND GURUDHATT HOTEL, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, HANGAL, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONERS (BY MISS. AMRUTA M.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. CHANNAVEERAYYA S/O RUDRAYYA KITTURMATH, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE AND NOTARY, R/AT: IJARILAKAMAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 2. SRI. BASAVENNAYYA S/O. RUDRAYYA KITTURMATH, AGED 66 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED TEACHER, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4346 WP No. 102348 of 2024 R/AT: VIDYANAGAR, PWD QUARTERS, HAVERI, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. SRI. SANGAYYA RUDRAYYA KITTURMATH, SINCE DECEASED BY L.R’S 3. SMT. SUMA W/O. SANGAYYA KITTURMATH, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: KITTUR, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 4. SMT. KAVITHA W/O. GURUMURTHY TEMBAD, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: TAVAAMELLIHALLI AT SAVANUR, NOW AT HAVERI-581 110. 5. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. SANGAYYA KITTUMATH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/AT: KITTUR, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 6. SRI. GANGADHARAYYA S/O. RUDRAYYA KITTHURMATH, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: KITTUR, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 7. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: TIMMENAHALLI, PRESENTLY R/AT: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HAVERI-581 110. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4346 WP No. 102348 of 2024 8. SMT. SAVITRA W/O. ASHOK GURUMATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: ALADKATTI, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. 9. SMT. HALAVVA W/O.RUDRAYYA KITTURMATH, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: KITTUR, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI-581 110. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2; R5-HELD SUFFICIENT; R3, R4, R6 TO R9-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 ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Miss.Amruta M.M., counsel on behalf of Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi., for the petitioners and Sri.Rohit S.Patil., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4346 WP No. 102348 of 2024 2. The caption Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Haveri on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.219/2018, vide Annexure-G and dismiss the application in I.A.No.9 by allowing the present writ petition. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Haveri in O.S.No.219/2018 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The defendants appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. Issues were framed by the Trial Court. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 1 to 4 filed I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement. The plaintiffs filed objections to the application. The Trial Court vide order dated 29.02.2024 allowed the application. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4346 WP No. 102348 of 2024 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 6. Miss.Amruta.M.M., counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the law, facts and material on record. Next, she submitted that the properties that were sought to be included by way of amendment in the written statement are the self-acquired property of the plaintiffs. Hence, the defendants cannot be permitted to include those properties. A further submission is made that the written statement was filed in the year 2018 and the proposed amendment is sought to be made in the year 2023. There is an inordinate delay of almost of five years and hence the order is perverse. Lastly, she submits that viewed from any angle, the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside and the Writ Petition may be allowed. 7. Sri.Rohit S.Patil., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 justified the order passed by the Trial Court. He argued by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4346 WP No. 102348 of 2024 saying that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit and there is no reason for seeking a new prayer. Lastly, he submitted that the Trial Court extenso referred to the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties rightly allowed the application. Counsel, therefore, submits the petition may be rejected. 8. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require intervention. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to an order passed on an amendment application. In the present case, the defendants 1 to 4 sought amendment of their written statement. By the amendment, the defendants wanted to explain para-No.29 of the written statement. A copy of the application is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-E. A careful perusal of the same would reflect that the proposed amendment is nothing but an explanation to para-No.29. The proposed amendment is like an explanation and it does not introduce any new defence compared to what has originally been pleaded in the written statement. Taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Trial Court allowed the application and, in my view, allowing the application seeking - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4346 WP No. 102348 of 2024 amendment of the written statement is just and proper. I find no grounds to interfere with the order. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE CLK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 1