- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15246 WP No. 104757 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 104757 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVAPPA KUNDUR, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAYIKERUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI @ AKKAMMA W/O SURESH SHIRAHATTI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWORK, R/O. ANKAD KANA, BANKAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581 205. 2. SHRI CHANNAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA KUNDUR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAYIKERUR, TAL. SAVANUR, NOW AT: 2ND CROSS, BASAWESHWAR NAGAR, HAVERI, TAL. HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. 3. SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SHIVAPPA KUNDUR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAYIKERUR, TAL. SAVANUR, NOW AT: 2ND CROSS, BASAWESHWAR NAGAR, HAVERI, TAL. HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. SHRI KHADARSAB S/O NABISAB JAKATI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 4. SMT. HUSENABI W/O KHADARSAB JAKATI, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15246 WP No. 104757 of 2023 R/O. NAYIKERUR, TAL. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. 5. SHRI. RUSTANSAB S/O KHADARSAB JAKATI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAYIKERUR, TAL. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. 6. SHRI ISMAILSAB S/O KHADARSAB JAKATI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAYIKERUR, TAL. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. 7. SMT. BHEGUMBABNU W/O DASTAGIRISAB JAANAKAR, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KALASA, TQ. KUNDGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-581 113. 8. SMT. SHABIRABHANU W/O MAKBUL HORAKERI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK, R/O. YALIWAL, TQ. KUNDGOL, DIST. DHARWAD-581 113. 9. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O BASAVARAJ KUNDUR, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC, AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAYIKERUR, TAL. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R9 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER 24-07-2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.10 IN O.S. NO.288/2015 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAVANUR VIDE ANNEXURE-‘E’, BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/S, ORDER/S DIRECTION/S. 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:15246 WP No. 104757 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) The petition is filed assailing the order dated 24.07.2023 marked as Annexure-E, passed on I.A.No.10, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S.No.288/2015 on the file of Civil Judge, Savanur1,. The Trial Court allowed the application seeking amendment in the plaint. 2. The suit is one for partition and separate possession. An application was filed seeking to incorporate a prayer to declare that the compromise decree passed in 1986 is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that he was a minor at the time the compromise decree was passed and that he attained majority two years thereafter. The suit was instituted in the year 2015. The Trial Court allowed the application, though it was filed at the stage of final arguments. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff has not been diligent, that the relief sought is barred by limitation, and that an application for amendment of the plaint at the stage of final arguments is not permissible. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15246 WP No. 104757 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff would defend the impugned order. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. If it is the case of the plaintiff that the relief of declaration sought by way of amendment is barred by limitation as on the date of the suit, then such contention would still be available to the defendants, even if the amendment is allowed, as the suit was filed in the year 2015 and the decree was passed in 1986. Whether the prayer for declaration sought by way of amendment is barred by limitation or not shall be considered by the Trial Court while considering the case on merits. 7. However, the defendants are put to inconvenience because of delay on the part of the plaintiff in moving the application. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the defendants are to be compensated. The plaintiff shall pay cost of ₹5,000/- to the defendants. The Trial Court had imposed cost of only ₹500/-, which is inadequate. The plaintiff shall pay an additional sum of ₹4,500/- to the defendants towards costs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15246 WP No. 104757 of 2023 9. The defendants are at liberty to file an additional written statement, if they desire. 10. If any additional issue would arise, the parties are at liberty to lead any additional evidence. 11. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the declaration sought or the plea of limitation. 13. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 14. The cost is to be paid by next date before the Trial Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 58