- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29122 WP No. 21916 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21916 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI DODDAIAH S/O LATE GOURIMADA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NEW LAYOUT, MOOLURU VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 571 440. 2. SRI NAGA @ NAGARAJU S/O LATE PUTTABASAVA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT OLD LAYOUT, MOOLURU VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 571 440. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAYARAJ D.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O DUNDANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLD Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29122 WP No. 21916 of 2025 NAYAKARA BEEDI, MOOLURU VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 571 440. LATE PUTTALINGA SINCE, DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’s WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS DEFENDANT NOS.1(a) TO 1(c) 2. SMT. THAYAMMA W/O LATE PUTTALINGA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 3. SRI GIRI S/O LATE PUTTALINGA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA S/O LATE PUTTALINGA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NAYAKARA BEEDI, MOOLURU VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 571 440. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS DISPENSED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2025) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29122 WP No. 21916 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 187/2012 PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLLEGALA VIDE ANNEXURE-A1; B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLLEGALA IN REJECTING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IN IA NO. XIV FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO. 2 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 VIDE ANNEXURE-A2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.187 of 2012 instituted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Kollegala seeking a relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 2. Heard Sri D.S.Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.K. Girish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29122 WP No. 21916 of 2025 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The 1st respondent/plaintiff institutes O.S.No.187 of 2012 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On receipt of summons, the defendants enter appearance and file their written statement on 30-07-2012. The trial progresses. 13 years passed by. An application comes to be filed by the defendants on 02-09-2023 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment to the written statement after 11 years of its filing. The plaintiff has filed objections to the application. The concerned Court rejects the same on 09.04.2025. The rejection of which has driven defendant Nos.2 and 3 to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the application was preferred to insert paragraphs 6(a) to 6(c) on the ground that the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.187 of 2012 bringing in fraudulent boundaries and the defendants got the knowledge of the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29122 WP No. 21916 of 2025 fact only recently. Therefore, it was imperative on the part of the concerned Court to have allowed the application as it was only seeking insertion of certain paragraphs. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff would contend that the matter was at the stage of final arguments. At that point in time, the application comes to be filed on a fact that was all along known to them for 11 years, as they are wanting to produce boundaries indicated in a suit of the plaintiff allegedly instituted in the year 2012. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the concerned Court is the submission of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass. Application – I.A.No.XIV is preferred by the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 after 11 years of filing of the written statement to introduce certain new facts in a suit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29122 WP No. 21916 of 2025 instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2012, by pleading that multiplicity of proceedings would ensue, if the amendment is not allowed. The concerned Court by the following order rejects the application: “5) POINT NO.1 : The defendants have filed the present IA No.14, seeking amendment of their written statement filed on 30.07.2012, by insertion of Para No.6(a) to (c) as already mentioned, it is contention of the defendants that, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and consequential injunction by giving false boundaries to the suit schedule property and the defendants have got to know about the said facts only when they obtained certified copies from the authorities. 6) On the perusal of the pleadings sought for insertion, it would indicate that the defendants want to explain the flow of title to the property bearing Sy.No.153/8 and 153/9 of Mulluru Village, but the property which is in the question is Sy.No.153/10 which is as per the admissions by the defendants, the defendants are nowhere connected to said property Via title. 7) Before discussing the merits of the application, it would be proper for this court to note down the conduct of the defendants before this court. On service of summons the defendants through their counsel appeared and filed their written statement on 30.07.2012 and thereafter after completion of plaintiff side evidence, on 27.02.2019 defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and on 07.06.2019 the defendants had filed IA No- IX, under order VIII Rule 1(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission of this court for production of documents which was allowed on 26.06.2019 and on 09.08.2019 the defendants got marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 through Dw-1 and after examination of both sides this court on 18.08.2023 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29122 WP No. 21916 of 2025 posted the matter for final arguments. At this stage the defendants came up with this application on 02.09.2023. 8) Now if the reasons pleaded in affidavit filed in support of IA and proposed amendment are perused, it discloses that the defendants have come to the knowledge of wrong implication of the boundaries by the plaintiff only when they have obtained certified copies from the authorities. But as already discussed the defendants has given their evidence for the first time on 27.02.2019 and got marked documents through DW-1 on 09.08.2019 and after long period of 4 years 24 days, defendants comes up with this application on 02.09.2023, stating that they have got knowledge of implication of wrong boundaries by the plaintiffs, only after obtaining certified copies, which even no prudent man would believe, that they being appeared before this court in the year 2012 and having given their evidence in the year 2019 and moreover this court could not presume what are the documents by which the defendants have got knowledge of the said fact of implication of wrong boundaries and when did they have obtained certified copies from the authorities. 9) This being part, if the pleadings sought for insertion is perused, it could be understood that the defendants in proposed Para No.6(a) to (c) are trying to explain title to the properties in Sy. No.153/8 and 153/9 and since the dispute in question is only with regard to property in Sy. No.153/10, the question of examining the title of Sy. No.153/8 and 9 will not warrant before this Court and permitting defendants to amend their written statement at this stage would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings before this Court. By considering conduct of the defendants and reasons allotted by them in the affidavit in I.A No.14, this court feels that the defendants have not made out any bonafides before this Court to use its discretion for allowing IA No-XIV. Accordingly, this court answer Point No.1 In the negative” (Emphasis added) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29122 WP No. 21916 of 2025 The concerned Court by giving cogent reasons has rejected the application, which is in tune with law. 8. As observed hereinabove, the factum of insertion of paragraphs 6 (a) to 6(c) was known to the defendants in the year 2012 itself. Therefore, they ought to have exercised due diligence as obtaining under the statute in terms of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC. In that light, no fault can be found with the order so passed by the concerned Court. 9. The writ petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 134