- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.5425/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: T.M. NANJE GOWDA S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O KUVEMPUNAGAR, KOTE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1. SMT. KAVERI T.N. W/O SATHYAPAL HOUSE WIFE AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O. GIRISDARSHINI OPPOSITE TO IDSG COLLEGE BEEKANAHALLI ROAD, JYOTHINAGAR CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101. 2. SATISH T.N. S/O LATE T.M. NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. MUGITHIHALLI VILLAGE NEAR SANNASIDDEGOWDA'S HOUSE MUGTHIALLI POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DIS-577101. 3. SMT. KAVITHA T.N. W/O ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O 21, 1ST MAIN, VAISHNAVI LAYOUT VIDYARANYA, BANGALORE 97. 4. SMT. MAMATHA T.N. W/O YOGESH K.M AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 HOUSEWIFE R/O SANKETH NILAYA FOREST LAYOUT NEAR BSNL TOWER SRINIVASA NAGAR RAMPURA POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DIS-577101. 5. SMT. VEENA T.N. W/O RAJESH .M HOUSE WIFE AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O HALE MUDIGERE VILLAGE MUDIGERE POST AND TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK-577101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.,) AND: 1. A.M. SOMEGOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 2. PRASHANTH S/O SOMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 3. ABHIJITH A.P. S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 4. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. ALL ARE R/O. ARENAHALLI VILLAGE HALASUMANE POST - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 577101. 5. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O THONDAVALLI VILLAGE VASTARE HOBLI AND POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DIS-577101. 6. ABDUL KHADER S/O LATE ABDULLA HAJJE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O CHRISTIAN COONY CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101. 7. K.P. SRINIVASA S/O H. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O D. NO.193, 13TH 'B' CROSS 9TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE 560102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. YASHODHA Y. RAJOLI, ADV., FOR SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADV., FOR R7 R2 TO R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/C/O DTD:03.07.2025 PETITION AGAINST R1 STANDS ABATED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-E THAT THE ORDER DTD.7.2.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN O.S.NO.326/2014 ON IN IA NO.11 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.11 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 BY THE PETITIONER & 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directions or order quashing the Annexure 'E' that the order dated 07-02-2020 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC court at Chikkamagalur in O.S.No.326/2014 on IA.No.11 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 consequently allow the application No.11 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 by the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners in possession of the schedule 'A' property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from using the schedule 'B' property. It is further submitted that the assertion of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of schedule 'A' property and schedule 'B' property is a mud road through which the petitioners reach schedule 'A' property and which has been obstructed by the respondents/defendants herein. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the said suit the petitioners filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 an application seeking for amendment of the plaint to incorporate certain survey numbers in the schedule 'B' property and also to correct the name of defendant No.7 as Sri.K.R.Srinivasa instead of Sri.K.P.Srinivasa. It is submitted that the proposed amendment came to be rejected by the trial Court solely on the ground that the same is filed after the commencement of the trial and there is no due diligence. It is submitted that the petitioners came to know that the mud road passes through the other survey numbers and they intend to add those survey numbers in the schedule 'B' property and the proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Smt.Yashoda Y. Rajoli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Ashwini Rajagopal, learned counsel for respondent No.7 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the proposed amendment sought by the petitioners is after the commencement of the trial and there is a clear bar under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 Order VI Rule 17 proviso to allow such application which has been rightly considered by the trial Court and rejected the application. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and there is no due diligence in filing such application. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Venkatamma Namasivayan and Others v. Sri.K.Anil Kumar and Others1 and submits that in similar circumstances, this Court considering proviso of Order VI Rule 17, rejected the amendment. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.7 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. The material on record indicate that the petitioners filed OS.No.326/2014 for a relief of declaration 1 WP.No.16411/2025 disposed on 08.07.2025 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of schedule 'A' property and the plaintiffs have got rights over the schedule 'B' property to ingress and egress to their property by way of easement of prescription as well as necessity. The schedule 'A' property is shown as Sy.No.372/2, 3, 4 and 5 situated at Vastare Village and Hobli, Chikmagaluru Taluk having common boundaries. The schedule 'B' property is shown in the plaint as a mud road running in Sy.No.372 of Vastare Village and Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk, from Marikatte measuring 1/4 km in length and 12 feet width. The records indicate that the trial has commenced in the said suit and when the matter was posted for cross examination of PW.2, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to amend the plaint. The trial Court rejected the said application under the impugned order dated 07.02.2020. The proposed amendment indicates that the petitioners intend to add survey numbers in schedule 'B' - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 property i.e., Sy.Nos.372/8, 372/7, 372/6, 372/1, 411 and 410 in place of Sy.No.372 and also sought correction of the name of defendant No.7 as Sri.K.R.Srinivasa instead of Sri.K.P.Srinivasa. To support the said application, the petitioner No.2 filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, it is indicated that due to inadvertence and bonafide reasons at the time of presentation of plaint, the petitioners were not aware about the survey numbers through which the mud road passes and later he came to know about the same after obtaining the survey records, hence, there is a delay in filing the application. 6. In my considered view, the explanation offered by the petitioner is required to be accepted as he has made his best effort to secure the particulars, however, he could not at the time of filing of the petition and it is stated that the said particulars recently came to his knowledge and he filed an application to amend the plaint. In my considered view, the proposed amendment would neither change the nature of suit, nor change the cause of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 action, nor the scheme of the suit. The proposed amendment is only in the form of clarification of the existing suit schedule property and also to correct the name of defendant No.7, which definitely would not cause any prejudice to the other side. In fact, the proposed amendment would assist the trial Court in completely adjudicating the dispute between the parties. 7. The decision relied by the learned counsel for respondent No.7 has no application to the case on hand. There is no dispute that there is a bar in allowing the application for amendment of pleading once the trial is commenced. However, in the case on hand, the proposed amendment would neither alter the prayer in the suit nor change the cause of action nor take away any admission. Hence, in my considered view, the proposed amendment is required to be allowed. In the aforesaid case referred by the learned counsel for respondent No.7, there was delay of 14 years in filing an application for amendment and on facts of that case, it is evident that the proposed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 amendment is sought to insert the new survey numbers, which are not clarificatory in nature. Hence, the aforesaid judgment has no application to the case on hand. Considering the nature of amendment sought and the nature of suit as the petitioners are seeking declaration that they have rights of ingress and egress over the suit schedule property which is required to be adjudicated by the trial Court based on the pleading and the said proposed amendment would aid to adjudicate the said dispute. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 07.02.2020 passed on IA No.11 in OS.No.326/2014 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru is hereby set aside. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27491 W.P. No.5425/2020 iii) Consequently, IA No.11 filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC is allowed. iv) The petitioners shall file amended plaint within 2 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39