- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 30888 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MANJUNATH A SON OF LATE. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCCUPATION MILK VENDING BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NO.1726/1, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA, 3RD DIVISION, OPPOSITE VENKATESHWARA TALKIES, BENGALURU-560 064 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.130/A, RAMANNA BUILDING, SANTHE CIRCLE, OPPOSITE BDK CHOULTRY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064 2. SRI.KUMAR.A. SON OF LATE. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCCUPATION PRIVATE SERVICE, RESIDING AT NO.1726/1, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA, 3RD DIVISION, OPPOSITE VENKATESHWARA TALKIES, BENGALURU-560 064 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.130/A, RAMANNA BUILDING, SANTHE CIRCLE, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 OPPOSITE BDK CHOULTRY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N. K. KANTHARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF RATHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN RESIDING AT BANGALORE MANGALORE ROAD, OPPOSITE O PRUTHVI TALKIES, HASSAN 573 201. 2. SMT. ANJINAMMA WIFE OF RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, RESIDING AT SANTHEPETE CIRCLE, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA TOWN, BENGALURU -560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ.N.DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.6014/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the First Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.6014/1997 whereby rejected the application filed by the petitioners under order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of additional written statement in O.S.NO.6014/1997. 2. Parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants. Petitioners are the defendant No.1(b) and defendant No.1(c), and respondents are the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court. 3. The suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the defendants, the petitioners herein i.e., defendant No.1(b) and defendant No.1(c) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 passed away and the mother of the defendants also died during the pendency of the suit. The suit came to be dismissed, pursuant to which, plaintiff No.1 preferred Regular First Appeal in RFA.No.2523/2007 before this Court. 4. This Court after considering the arguments put forth by learned counsel for both the parties, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff No.1, set aside the judgment of the trial Court of dismissal and remitted back the matter before the trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court and also allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 and permitted the defendants to file additional written statement in view of allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC so also the application filed under 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC. 5. In view of allowing 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, this Court directed the trial Court to secure plaintiff Nos.1 and respondent No.1(b) to submit their - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling and subsequent orders were passed directing the plaintiffs to adduce their further evidence so also the defendants in view of the observations and to consider the DNA report of the parties. This Court also directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of one year since suit is of the year 1997. 6. Pursuant to the order, the matter was remitted back to the trial Court, defendants filed an application seeking to file additional written statement. Defendants filed an additional written statement on 10.07.2025 and thereafter they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment to the written statement to incorporate certain paragraphs in the written statement at the stage of recording of evidence. 7. The stage was set down for recording of evidence of the defendants, at that stage, this application came to be filed. Though the defendants filed the application to incorporate paragraph No.2(a) to 2(g), the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 trial Court without considering the said application, has rejected the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners i.e., defendant Nos.1(b) and 1(c) are before this Court. 8. At this stage of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1(b) and 1(c) submits that he would restrict his prayer to for amendment of the written statement only to the extent of the paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e) filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and would not insist on the other paragraphs as sought for incorporation as mentioned in additional written statement. 9. On the careful perusal of the paragraphs that sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, it is seen that the certain defense is taken with regard to the suit being not maintainable and that the plaintiffs are total strangers and not coparceners and the plaintiffs will have to establish the relationship primarily and obtain declaratory relief that they are the children of deceased Ammayyamma W/o Subbarayappa. In the absence of such - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 a relief, the suit for partition and separate possession is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. Further it is stated that the plaintiffs are total strangers have no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. 10. Apparently, it is seen that these two paragraphs i.e., paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e) would not alter the earlier defense taken by the defendants so also it could not effect the case of the plaintiffs. It is also seen that issues are framed by the trial Court as issue Nos.1 to 7 which deals with some of the contentions taken by the defendants in the amendment that is sought. 11. In view of the fact that this Court has remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication and evidence to be recorded on the basis of allowing of application under Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC for the purpose of collecting blood samples and conducting an avuncular DNA profiling and evidence of the parties to be recorded, I do not find any legal impediment in the application being allowed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 partly to the extent of allowing the amendment at paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e). It would however not cause any hardship to the plaintiffs as no hardship would be cause to the respondents. 12. Under the circumstances, on the application being filed at the stage of evidence and having remanded the matter, it becomes necessary for the trial Court to allow the application and restrict the amendment to the paragraph 2(d) and paragraph 2(e) in the written statement. It is for the parties to lead evidence and proceed further in the matter. 13. In view of the direction already having being given by this Court in RFA proceedings, to dispose of the matter within a period of one year, the trial Court shall expedite the matter and dispose of the matter as early as possible without waiting for the fag end period of one year. 14. Accordingly, I pass the following order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 ORDER The petition is allowed in part. 2. The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.6014/1997 is hereby set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is consequently allowed insofar as only with regard to the amendment to the extent of paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e). 3. Parties are at liberty to lead further evidence. However, the plaintiffs or the defendants shall complete their evidence within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) shall be subject to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling as opined by this Court in Regular First Appeal without any further delay. 5. It is made clear that any unnecessary adjournments and delay caused by either of the parties - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025 shall be viewed seriously and the trial Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on either of the parties. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3