- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11403 WP No. 100680 of 2021 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.100680 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RENUKA W/O. BALGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAYHADRI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NOORJAHAN W/O. ISMAIL KHAN, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. III CROSS, VIJAY NAGAR, BELAGAVI-591108. 2. SHRI KAMALAHEMED SHAIKH, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCCU: BUSINESS, R/O. SAYHADRI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590019. 3. SHRI RIYAZAHMED S/O. KUTBODDIN KILLEDAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCCU: BUSINESS, R/O. ESW 27, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, ADV. REP. SRI. SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.02.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI IN O.S. NO.420/2013 ON I.A.NO.XVII PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11403 WP No. 100680 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) The writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction and quash the impugned order dated: 02.02.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Belagavi in O.S.No.420/2013 on I.A.No.XVII produced at Annexure-H. ii. Grant such other relief, which the Court deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Sri. Shekargouda M. Naganuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant No.3 in a suit filed by respondent No.1 for a relief of declaration and injunction. In the said suit, petitioner filed a detailed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. The plaintiff examined his side, thereafter, filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint which came to be allowed under the impugned order. It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo and alleging the violation of the status-quo order, filed an application under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11403 WP No. 100680 of 2021 Order 39 Rule 2-A r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure on 10.06.2014. 3. It is further submitted that in the year 2014, as per the plaintiff, he has knowledge with regard to the alleged illegal construction. However, he files an application for amendment of the plaint in the year 2019 which is hit by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the application for amendment is after commencement of the trial which ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Abhilash Hanamannavar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the trial Court taking note of the fact that the proposed amendment is consequential to the main relief sought in the suit allowed the application, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11403 WP No. 100680 of 2021 given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 6. The material available on record indicates that the respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.420/2013 which is pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi. The said suit is for relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 09.08.2002 and further declaration that the Power of Attorney used by the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 is fabricated and declaration that the sale deed dated 27.12.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff and other reliefs including the relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner filed a written statement. The records indicate that the trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2013, directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure alleging violation of the order of status-quo granted by the trial Court by the defendant No.3. The records further indicate that the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11403 WP No. 100680 of 2021 contending that the defendant No.3 in violation of the order of status-quo, continued to put up construction. Hence, he sought amendment of the pleading to the aforesaid effect and further relief of mandatory injunction, which came to be allowed by the trial Court under the impugned order. The impugned order indicates that the assertion with regard to the construction in violation of status-quo order is required to be gone into in a full-fledged trial and if the amendment is allowed, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove his plea with regard to the mandatory injunction and proceeded to allow the application. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation and filed without due diligence is taken note of for the purpose of rejection. The contention of limitation with regard to the relief of mandatory injunction is required to be raised in the pending suit and the trial Court is required to answer the said contention after the full-fledged trial. Insofar as contention with regard to due diligence is concerned, the records indicate that the proposed amendment is sought after the plaintiff’s evidence and before the commencement of the defendant’s evidence. This Court has taken note of the fact that the plaintiff has made a specific - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11403 WP No. 100680 of 2021 assertion in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking amendment that in contravention of the status-quo order, the defendant No.3 is putting up the construction and the said event has taken place after filing of the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is seeking for relief of mandatory injunction which would be ancillary to the main relief sought in the suit. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the considered view that the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the proposed amendment is sought belatedly. Hence, the same is required to be allowed on cost. 7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed off. ii. The impugned order dated 02.02.2021 passed on I.A.No.XVII by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi in O.S.No.420/2013 is affirmed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11403 WP No. 100680 of 2021 iii. The plaintiff shall pay Rs.5,000/- as a cost to the defendants. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12