- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10017 WP No. 105537 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.105537 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O SHANKAR NILAJAGI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313. 2. SMT. SUSHILA W/O SHANKAR NILAJAGI, AGE: 56 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313. 3. MAHALINGAPPA S/O SHANKAR NILAJAGI, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313. 4. MANJUNATH S/O SHANKAR NILAJAGI, AGE. 28 YEARS OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313. 5. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O YALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10017 WP No. 105537 of 2025 R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S B HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C. OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT. 2. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MUDHOL REPRESENTED ITS COMMISSIONER, SRI. SUNIL PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. COMMISSIONER, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313. 3. SMT. LAXMI W/O RAMESH JAGADAL (LAXMI D/O SHANKAR NILAJAGI) AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUGALKHOD, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587312. 4. SMT. SULABHA W/O. KHANDOBA SHINDHE, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. R K KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.8 U/O VI R 17 R/W/S 151 CPC IN OS NO.100/2020 BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL VIDE ANNEXURE F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.8 U/O VI R 17 R/W/S 151 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10017 WP No. 105537 of 2025 CPC IN O.S.NO.100/2020 FILED BY PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE C, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.INTERIM PRAYERPENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION, THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO STAY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.100/2020 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL, VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Sri.R.K.Kulkarni, learned counsel who has filed caveat for respondent No.2 accepts notice for respondent No.2. 3. Notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 4. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i) A writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.8 u/O VI R 17 R/w/S 151 CPC in OS No.100/2020 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol vide Annexure-F and consequently allow I.A.No.8 u/O VI R 17 R/w/S 151 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10017 WP No. 105537 of 2025 CPC in O.S.No.100/2020 filed by petitioners vide Annexure-C, by allowing this writ petition. ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit and proper be issued, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. The petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.100/2020 seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit properties on the strength of possessory rights or a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit properties by way of adverse possession. 6. In the said suit, an application in I.A.No.8 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) was filed for amendment of the plaint, which came to be rejected by way of the impugned order. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the amendment, which has been sought, has not changed the nature or character of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10017 WP No. 105537 of 2025 the suit and, as such, the amendment, being necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties, ought to have been allowed. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, opposes the same by contending that an admission made in the plaint is sought to be withdrawn by the proposed amendment at point ‘A’, and this aspect has been rightly considered by the trial Court and as such, this Court ought not to interfere in the matter. 9. Head Shri S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ramesh Chigari., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri R.K.Kulkarni., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the papers. 10. What the petitioners propose to do is to replace the existing paragraph No.4 for 9th line. The 9th line existed reads as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10017 WP No. 105537 of 2025 “after CTS No.2669 it is appearing and visible in the suit property extract bearing CTS No.2669, that the said property was given by way of rent for one year. It is pertinent to plead that after lapse of one year neither said rent is continued or fresh rent deed is created.” and what is propose to be replaced reads as under: ““Plaintiffs were entered in possession of the suit property without the consent of defendant No.2 or other defendants” 11. A perusal of the above would indicate that the petitioners/plaintiffs alleged that, when the suit was filed, the plaintiffs were inducted into the property as tenants on rent for one year, and thereafter, the rent was not paid, and they continued in possession. By way of amendment, these averments are sought to be substituted, as indicated supra, stating that the plaintiffs entered into possession of the suit property without the consent of Defendant No.2 or other defendants. 12. In my considered opinion, the amendment now sought is contradictory to the earlier averments, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10017 WP No. 105537 of 2025 inasmuch as the induction of the plaintiffs as tenants, and the fact that rent was paid for one year, cannot be said to be without the consent of defendant No.2. This aspect has been rightly considered by the trial Court, and the trial Court has come to the conclusion that, by virtue of the amendment, the admission which has been made is sought to be given up. 13. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. The petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SH/AM CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65