- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16764 WP No. 102635 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.102635 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SADIQ S/O. ALLABAX NADAF AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: RIKCHAW DRIVER, R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAM P.GHORPADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NOORJAHAN S/O. MANSUR NADAF AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER, R/O. NEW SHAHAPURI NEAR NATARAJ LODGE, INFORNT OF MASIJID, KOLHAPUR, MAHARATSTRA STATE. 2. SHAMSHAD W/O. SHOUKAT NADAF AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.1209, KOLHAPUR NAKA, SHIVAJI ROAD, TAJMAHAL HOTEL, TQ: GADHINGLAJ, DIST: KOLHAPURE, MAHARATSTRA STATE. 3. MAMATAJ W/O. FIROZ NADAF AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DATTAWAD, TQ: SHIROLE, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2025.12.16 11:21:20 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16764 WP No. 102635 of 2022 DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTRA STATE. 4. YASEEN S/O. ALLABAX NADAF AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MILITARY SERVICE, R/O. 14, ENGINEERING REGIMENT, HYDERABAD, C/O. 56 ATO-91414. 5. SAJAN ALLABAX NADAF AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: RIKSHAW DRIVER, R/O. ANGOL, BELAGAVI-591103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH V.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRITE IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.IV IN OS NO.53/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CARRY OUT THE AMENDMENT AS SOUGHT IN I A NO.IV AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16764 WP No. 102635 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.06.2022 passed in O.S.No.53/2018 by the learned III Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi marked at Annexure-E, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint was rejected, wherein, the plaintiffs intended to incorporate certain prayer and wanted to plead few facts relating to alleged gift deed dated 16.07.2008 and Will dated 23.10.2016, which were referred to by the defendants in their written statement. 2. The suit was filed in the year 2018, and the written statement was filed in 2019. The application for amendment was filed on 03.03.2021, which is within three years from the date of filing of the additional written statement. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16764 WP No. 102635 of 2022 3. It is to be noticed that the documents referred to above are not the registered documents. Thus, it appears that the plaintiffs were not aware of the aforementioned documents. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that amendment was sought after completion of cross-examination of DW1 and said amendment is impermissible. It is his further submission that the documents were already marked in evidence and, therefore, the Court was justified in refusing the amendment. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. It is a well settled principle of law that when an application for amendment is filed and if a declaration is sought to be incorporated in the prayer, the mere fact that it may change the nature - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16764 WP No. 102635 of 2022 of the suit, is not by itself, a ground to reject the amendment. 7. It is to be noticed that the plaintiffs have sought declaration relating to alleged gift deed and alleged Will pleaded by the defendants in their written statement. Earlier to that, the plaintiffs were not aware of the said documents. The documents were not registered as already noted. Thus, the amendment would only avoid the multiplicity of litigation, which if denied, would enable the plaintiffs to file one more suit. 8. Under these circumstances, the Court could not have rejected application for amendment. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16764 WP No. 102635 of 2022 ii. Impugned order dated 15.06.2022 passed in O.S.No.53/2018 on I.A.No.IV by learned III Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi marked at Annexure-E, is set-aside. iii. The petitioners-plaintiffs shall carryout amendment in the plaint. iv. The defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement to the proposed amendment. v. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proposed amendment. Same shall be considered by the Court by considering the material evidence on record. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16