- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11382 WP No. 107247 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 107247 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. NAGESH BHAT, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YELLAPUR TOWN, TALUK: YELLAPUAR DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. MAINUDDIN S/O. SAYYED HASAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. YELLAPUR TOWN, TALUK: YELLAPUAR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D. SHANKAR BHAT S/O. DAMODAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. YELLAPUR TOWN, TALUK YELLAPUAR DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. SMT. HALIMABI W/O. SHAIKH ISMAIL, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DANDELI, TALUK HALIYAL, UTTARA KANNADA. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11382 WP No. 107247 of 2019 3. SMT. RAJIMA @ SHAHIDA W/O. MAHAMMAD IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. ANKOLA, TALUK ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 4. SMT. HASINA W/O. SAYYED SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 5. SEEMA S/O. SAYYED SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 6. JAVID S/O. SAYYED SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 7. SHAHID S/O. SAYYED SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 7 ARE R/O.YELLAPUR, DIST:UTTARA KANNADA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 DISPSENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2019 AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, YELLAPUR IN O.S.NO.53/2008 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.XX AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11382 WP No. 107247 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.02.2019 at Annexure-E passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur in O.S.No.53/2008 and consequently allow I.A.No.XX. b) Issue such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Sri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, learned appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff No.3 has filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint after he has been transposed as a plaintiff No.3. It is submitted that the plaintiff No.3 was arrayed as defendant No.4 in O.S.No.53/2008 filed by other plaintiffs and application for amendment came to be rejected solely on the ground that the trial had already commenced. It is submitted that after transposition, the plaintiff No.3 is required to narrate as to how defendant No.1 has played fraud and the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the lis between the parties. It is further submitted that the proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11382 WP No. 107247 of 2019 they have every right to file written statement to the same, if the plaint is amended. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri Vijay M.Malali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 5. Smt.Mariambi and three others filed O.S.No.53/2008 seeking relief of declaration that judgment and decree in O.S.No.1/1996 is not binding and is illegal on the ground that the same is obtained by fraud. In the said suit, the present petitioner No.2 has been arrayed as defendant No.4. The records indicate that the defendants have filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 6 and thereafter the defendant No.4 – Mainuddin filed an application seeking for transposition himself as plaintiff in the suit. The Trial Court allowed the said application. Defendant No.4 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11382 WP No. 107247 of 2019 has been transposed as plaintiff No.3. The plaintiff No.3 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking for amendment of the plaint. The perusal of the application and the affidavit accompanying the application indicates that the plaintiff No.3 intends to narrate certain facts to support the case of other plaintiffs and particularly to assert that decree in O.S.No.1/1996 was obtained by fraud and by forging the signature. The trial Court rejected the said application under the impugned order. The records indicate that plaintiff No.3 was transposed in the year 2015 and the application for amendment was filed on 16.01.2019. Admittedly, the application was filed after commencement of trial and the affidavit accompanying the application does not indicate as to why plaintiff No.3 has not stated these facts earlier in the written statement filed by him when he was a defendant No.4 in the suit. The affidavit as well as the application is silent with regard to the aspect of due diligence and knowledge of these facts. The trial Court taking note of the same and considering the fact that the present application is filed at the belated stage of the proceedings, rejected the application. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11382 WP No. 107247 of 2019 interference in the present proceedings. Accordingly, writ petition is rejected. 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4