- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15564 WP No. 108539 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 108539 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. G. RAGHAVENDRA S/O G. LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. 10TH WARD, GOULERA HATTI, OPP. MALLIGE TOURIST HOME, HOSAPETE TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583 201. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISH M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GOWLI RAJASHEKHAR S/O SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 7/45, R/O. RANGANATHAM STREET, OPPOSITE SRI RAM TEMPLE, YOGI MALLVARAM, TIRUCHANOOR, CHITTOR, ANDRA PRADESH-517 503. 2. SRI. G. SHANTHANNA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DOOR NO. 102, GOULERA ONI, 12TH WARD, KAMALAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. 3. SRI. G. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DOOR NO.101, GOULERA ONI, 12TH WARD, KAMALAPURA, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15564 WP No. 108539 of 2025 HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. 4. SRI. G. LAKSHMANA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DOOR NO.207, GOULERA ONI, 11TH WARD, KAMALAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. 5. SRI. G. SHIVAMURTHY S/O. LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DOOR NO.207/1, GOULERA ONI, 11TH WARD, KUNTE AREA, KAMALAPURA, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. 6. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. LATE G. MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DOOR NO.205 AND 206 GOULERA ONI, 11TH WARD, KUNTE AREA, KAMALAPUR, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 7. G.B. RANUKA BABU S/O. LATE MARISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. 207/1, 11TH WARD, KUNTE AREA, KAMALAPUR, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 8. G.B. VEERESH S/O. LATE MARISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O. 207/1, 11TH WARD, KUNTE AREA, KAMALAPUR, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR NECESSARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09-09-2025 PASSED ON I.A NO.19 IN O.S. NO.59/2011 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAPETE VIDE ANNEXURE- H IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15564 WP No. 108539 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 09.07.2025 allowing amendment sought in the written statement. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 7 filed application to amend the written statement in a suit for partition. The suit is filed in the year 2021. Written statement is filed in the year 2023. Application for amendment is filed in the year 2025. 4. In the written statement filed earlier, the defendants Nos.1 and 3 to 7 did not take a defence based on the registered Will dated 10.01.1994, said to have been executed by father of defendant No.10. By way of an amendment, said defendants intend to incorporate the plea related to the registered Will dated 10.01.1994. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/son of defendant No.10, would submit that the plea relating to Will was not raised - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15564 WP No. 108539 of 2025 earlier and there is no due diligence on the part of the defendants, who seek amendment to incorporate the plea relating to the Will. It is further submitted that evidence has commenced and the case is at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, as such, the application could not have been considered. 6. Pointing to the impugned order, it is further submitted that reasons are not assigned by the trial Court as to why the objections raised by the defendants are to be overruled while allowing the application. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 8. The Will is said to have been dated 10.01.1994 and it is said to have been registered. Though, it is submitted that the Will is not produced, that by itself, may not be a ground to reject the application. 9. The contention that there is no exercise of due diligence by the defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 7 in not incorporating the plea relating to the Will, cannot be stretched to say that thereafter i.e. after the commencement of evidence the parties are totally precluded from raising a contention based on the alleged Will. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15564 WP No. 108539 of 2025 10. This Court is of the view that, in case the application is rejected probably the defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 7 would be entitled to file a suit based on the alleged Will subject to the proof of Will and other things. 11. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that amendment would avoid multiplicity of litigation and no injustice would be caused to the petitioner as he will be permitted to file rejoinder to the claim based on the said Will and the burden of proving the Will, will be on the propounders. 12. For the reasons assigned above, the order passed by the Trial Court, permitting the amendment is sustained. Writ petition is dismissed. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim relating to the Will. 14. The question relating to the execution and proof of the Will, has to be decided based on the evidence to be placed on record. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29