- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26193 W.P. No.4072/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4072/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/OF. RENUKA NILAYA 8TH CROSS, ASHOKA NAGAR TUMAKURU 572102. 2. SMT. LAKSHMI .G D/O LATE GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 3. SMT. UMA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 4. SMT. GANGARATHNA W/O GOPAL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT SHANIDEVARA TEMPLE KALPATHARU VANADA ROAD GARDEN ROAD, CHIKKAPET TUMAKURU 572101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADV., FOR P1 SRI. SUNIL KUMAR P. BANGARI, ADV., FOR P2 TO P4) AND: 1. SRI. RANGASWAMY ALIAS RAJANNA S/O LATE GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26193 W.P. No.4072/2020 2. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O LATE GULAIAH (1ST WIFE) AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 3. SRI. ANJAN KUMAR S/O LATE GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. 4. SRI. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. SL.NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NEAR SHANIDEVARA TEMPLE KALPATHARU VANADA ROAD GARDEN ROAD, CHIKKAPET TUMAKURU 572101. …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:15.09.2023 NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 D/W) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION FOR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2019 ONE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, IN O.S.NO.153/2006, IN SO FAR AS REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN RESPECT OF ADDING ITEM NOS.3 AND 4 OF THE APPLICATION SCHEDULE PROPERTIES TO THE PLAINT SCHEDULE AS ITEM NOS.5 AND 6, WHICH IS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2019 ONE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKAURU, IN O.S.NO.153/2006, ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC, WHICH IS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26193 W.P. No.4072/2020 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order of direction for quashing of the order dated 19.08.2019 one passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, in O.S.No.153/2006, in so far as rejection of the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, in respect of adding Item Nos.3 and 4 of the application schedule properties to the plaint schedule as Item Nos.5 and 6, which is found at Annexure-G to the writ petition. b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order of direction for quashing of the order dated 11.12.2019 one passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakauru, in O.S.No.153/2006, on an application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which is found at Annexure-K to the writ petition. 2. Sri.Sunil Kumar P.Bangari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioners have filed an application seeking amendment of the pleading in a suit filed by them and another, for partition. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.08.2019. Thereafter, the petitioners filed another application seeking to add certain properties which also - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26193 W.P. No.4072/2020 came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 11.12.2019. It is submitted that some of the properties referred in the application were left out when the suit was filed and later they came to know that item Nos.1 to 5 referred in the first application were the joint family properties and if those properties are not allowed to be brought on record, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury. It is further submitted that a clear assertion is made in the affidavit accompanying the application that the properties shown in the affidavit are the joint family properties. However, the Trial Court, at the first instance, in its order dated 19.08.2019 has held that the properties were purchased during the pendency of the suit and hence, the same cannot be considered as the joint family properties. In the later order dated 11.12.2019, the Trial Court held that the second application for the proposed amendment to incorporate item Nos.7 and 8 is hit by res judicata as the earlier application filed by the petitioners was rejected. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by incorporating the items referred to in the applications in the suit schedule properties as ultimately, whether the properties are the joint family properties or not is required to be gone into during the trial and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26193 W.P. No.4072/2020 without doing so, the applications have been rejected by the Trial Court at the threshold itself. Hence, he seeks to set aside both the impugned orders and to permit the petitioners to add the said properties in the suit schedule. 3. Though the respondents are served they remained absent. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. 5. The petitioners have filed O.S.No.153/2006 for the relief of partition and separate possession. The suit was filed in the year 2006. In the said suit, certain properties were added in the schedule claiming to be the joint family properties. The defendants opposed the said suit by filing a written statement. The petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on 02.08.2019 seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating 5 items of the properties as the suit schedule properties. The affidavit accompanying the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26193 W.P. No.4072/2020 said application indicates that by inadvertence, some of the properties were left out in the plaint and hence, they were necessary to be added in the plaint as they were the joint family properties. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on 19.08.2019. Later again, the petitioners filed another application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment to incorporate Item Nos.7 and 8 properties which was already considered and rejected by the Trial Court in its order dated 19.08.2019. The affidavit accompanying the application dated 02.08.2019 did not indicate as to how these properties were the joint family properties and the properties were standing in the name of which defendant. The Trial Court clearly recorded the finding that the said properties were purchased after filing of the suit by the petitioners. Hence, I am of the considered view that the finding recorded by the Trial Court in rejecting the application vide order dated 19.08.2019 does not suffer from any perversity. Similarly, under the order dated 11.12.2019, the Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the similar application filed by the petitioners was rejected on 19.08.2019. If the application filed by the petitioner dated 02.08.2019 is perused, the same is bereft of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26193 W.P. No.4072/2020 details and the grounds are not made out to consider the said application for amendment. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint. I do not find any error or perversity in the orders under challenge calling for any interference in this petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39