- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10863 WP No. 126419 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 126419 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: BALAVVA W/O. BASAVANTAGOWDA GOUDAR @ DEVARAMANI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWORK, R/O. PALATHI, TAL: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587118. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRANAV V. BADAGI, ADV. FOR SRI. S. B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVANTAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA GOUDAR @ DEVARAMANI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PALATHI, TAL: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587118. 2. SANGANABASAPPA S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA JALIHAL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KARADI, TAL: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587118. 3. LAXMIBAI HANAMANT KURI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHATNIHAL, TAL: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587118. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10863 WP No. 126419 of 2020 4. BASANAGOUDA S/O. BASANTAGOUDA GOUDAR @ DEVARAMANI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT/AGRICULTURE, R/O. PALATHI, TAL: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587118. 5. KUMARI CHANNAVVA D/O. BASAVANTAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. PALATHI, TAL: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587118. 6. YALLANAGOUDA S/O. BASAVANTAGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. PALATHI, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH D. NARGUND, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 ON I.A.NO.12 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND IN O.S.NO.132/2014 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ALLOW THE I.A.NO.12 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:10863 WP No. 126419 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: I) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 on I.A.No.12 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund in O.S.No.132/2014 a copy of which is produced herein as per Annexure-D and allow the I.A.No.12. II) Any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit be granted in the interest of justice. 2. Heard Sri.Pranav V. Badagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her children filed a suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property against the husband of the petitioner and others. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the left out property of the joint family. It is submitted that the petitioner and her children are residing separately from the matrimonial house and they were not aware about the property in R.S.No.10/3B measuring 1 acre 16 guntas, which later they came to know. Hence, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint. However, the trial Court without appreciating the fact - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10863 WP No. 126419 of 2020 that the said property is a joint family property, proceeded to reject the application solely on the ground that the matter is posted for cross-examination of PW1 and there is no due diligence. 3. It is further submitted that the non inclusion of the property in R.S.No.10/3B would cause prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner and her children are the coparceners of the family entitled share. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by allowing the application in I.A.No.12 filed by the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Sri. Santosh D. Nargund, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is very clear that after commencement of the trial, no amendment can be allowed to the pleading unless due diligence is shown by the party. It is submitted that the averment in the application seeking amendment is bereft of details. Hence, the trial Court has rightly rejected the same, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10863 WP No. 126419 of 2020 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the materials available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 6. The petitioner and her children filed O.S.No.132/2014 which is pending on the file of Civil Judge at Hungund. The said suit is for relief of partition and separate possession of suit schedule property. The said suit is filed against the husband of the petitioner and another. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC on the ground that one of the joint family property is left out from being included in the suit schedule property due to oversight. The application accompanied by affidavit does not assigned any reason whatsoever with regard to the due diligence. Considering the same, the trial Court rejected the application. The order sheet indicates that the petitioner had filed an application in Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the proposed defendant No.4 in the suit. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10863 WP No. 126419 of 2020 on 07.02.2019, wherein, the trial Court has clearly recorded the finding that the proposed defendant No.4 has purchased the property through process of the Court. The said order of the trial Court dated 07.02.2019 has attained finality. When things stood thus, the petitioner without challenging the said order filed an application suppressing the rejection of application for impleadment and filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint. The trial Court recorded the detailed finding at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 that one Arunodaya Dudagi has purchased the property pursuant to the judgment in O.S.No.165/2015 and through the process of the Court in E.P No.16/2016 and rejected the application. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in this petition. The present petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11