- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9415 WP No. 105098 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.105098 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. HAJESAB S/O. DONGRISAB MAKANDAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. SARAVARSHA S/O. DONGRISAB MAKANDAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 3. MAMMUSHA S/O. HAIDARSHA MAKANDAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. (ALL ARE R/O: SONN VILLAGE – 587 116, BILAGI TALUK, BAGALKOT DIST.) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HUSSAINBI W/O. ALLISHA MAKANDAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: COOLI. 2. REHAMATBI W/O. HUSSAINSHA MAKANDAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLI. 3. MABOOBI W/O. DONGRISAB MAKANDAR, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 4. RAZAKBI W/O. HAIDARSHA MAKANDAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. (ALL ARE R/O: SONN VILLAGE, BILAGI TALUKA, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 116. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14-7-2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BILAGI ON IA NO. 11 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN OS NO.7/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9415 WP No. 105098 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: I. A writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 14-7-2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Bilagi on IA No. 11 filed under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in OS No.7/2020 vide Annexure-E. II. Grant any other relief/s deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.7 of 2020, pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Bilagi, filed for declaration and separate possession. In the said suit, when the matter was posted for final arguments, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to amend the plaint by placing on record the details of the Court fee paid, jurisdiction, and cause of action, on the ground that, by inadvertence, one page to the plaint had not been attached to the plaint as filed, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9415 WP No. 105098 of 2025 and these three aspects, which could not be placed on record. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court on the ground that whatever is sought to be added now by way of amendment, was already on record and the formality of it was required to be discharged. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The submission of Sri Santhosh Mane., learned counsel for the petitioners is that the matter having been posted for final argument, at that stage, an amendment could not be allowed. The amendment being a post trial amendment, no proper explanation has been given for the purpose of seeking for such amendment and on that ground, he submits that the trial Court not having considered the issue properly, this Court ought to have decided. 4. Having heard Shri Santosh Mane, notice to the respondents is dispensed with, in view of the proposed order to be passed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9415 WP No. 105098 of 2025 5. A perusal of the plaint, I.A.No.11 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and the orders passed thereon, would indicate that there appears to be a genuine mistake on the part of the plaintiffs in filing one page of the plaint containing the formal paragraphs, which are normally found at the end of each plaint, namely, the jurisdiction, Court fee and cause of action, which are thereafter followed by the prayer column and verification. The aspect of Court fee, jurisdiction and cause of action, are already pleaded in the plaint, as could be seen from the perusal of the plaint. All the contentions regarding prayers sought for have been taken up. 6. It is only from and out of those contentions that the cause of action, paragraph has been specifically stated. This apparently has also been done on account of an application in I.A.No.12 filed by the defendants No.2 and 3 under order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC, for rejection of the plaint, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9415 WP No. 105098 of 2025 since the plaint does not have a cause of action para. Of course, the cause of action would have to be ascertained on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and not on the basis of a specific cause of action paragraph. 7. Be that as it may, what the plaintiffs has sought for, is only insertion of these formal paragraphs by way of the amendment, which does not in any manner change the nature of the suit or the relief sought for, not as it any way prejudice the defendants therein. 8. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court, the petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/-CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51