- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 109428 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA SORATUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA SORATUR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KENCHAVVA W/O SHIVANAGAPPA HEDIYALA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O RAMANAGOUDA HOSGOUDRA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. SRI. MANJAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA MAGOD, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 3a. SMT. SHANKRAMMA W/O LATE SRI MANJAPPA MAGOD, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:54 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3b. SMT. SUDHA D/O LATE MANJAPPA MAGOD W/O VEERESH MASUR, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. HIREMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 3c. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O LATE MANJAPPA MAGOD, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 4. SRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O HANUMAGOUDA MAGODA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 4a. SMT. PREMA W/O LATE BASANAGOUDA MAGOD, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 4b. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE BASANAGOUDA MAGOD, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 4c. SMT. RUPA D/O LATE BASANAGOUDA MAGOD W/O MANJAPPA CHIKKANANDI, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. HIREMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 5. SRI. ASHOK S/O CHANABASAPPA SORATUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 6. SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O CHANABASAPPA SORATUR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 6a. SMT. SUMITRAMMA W/O BHIMAPPA SORATUR, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 6b. SRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O BHIMAPPA SORATUR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 6c. SMT. SAVITA W/O KARIBASAPPA AREKATI D/O BHIMAPPA SORATUR, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. AREKATTI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 6d. SRI. HARISH S/O BHIMAPPA SORATUR, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 7. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O CHANABASAPPA SORATUR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 8. SRI. BASAPPA S/O VEERAPPA HADIMANI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 8a. SMT. ANANDAMMA D/O LATE BASAPPA HADIMANI W/O HEMAPPA YALAVATTI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. KURUBAGERI, RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 8b. SMT. RENUKA D/O LATE BASAPPA HADIMANI W/O CHANDRAPPA SORATUR, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 8c. SMT. SHANTHAVVA D/O LATE BASAPPA HADIMANI W/O SHANKARAGOUDA CHANNAGOUDRA, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 R/O. DODDA GUBBI, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 9. SRI. BASAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA HADIMANI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 9a. SRI. KARABASAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 9b. SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O MAHESHAPPA D/O BASAPPA, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. DODDAGUBBI, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 10. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O MADEVAPPA HADIMANI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 11. SRI. MAHESHAPPA S/O MURUDAPPA HADIMANI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 12. SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA HADIMANI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 13. SRI. DUNDEPPA S/O BHARMAPPA YADACHI, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 14. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O BHARAMAPP YADACHI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 15. SRI. CHANABASAPPA S/O GURUSHANTHAPPA YADACHI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 16. SRI. UJJAPPA S/O KARABASAPPA YADACHI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 17. SRI. UJJAPPA S/O MARULASIDDAPPA YADACHI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 18. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O TIRUKAPPA HEDIYALA, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 19. SRI. BHARAMAGOUDA S/O TIRUKAPPA HEDIYALA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 19a. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O BHARAMAGOUDA HEDIYALA, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. HIREMORABA, TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI. 19b. SMT. AKKAMMA W/O BASAPPA VALIYAPPAHALLER D/O BHARAMAGOUDA HEDIYALA, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. MARAVALLI, TQ. SHIKHARIPURA, DIST. SHIVAMOGGA. 19c. SRI. MALTESH S/O BHARAMAGOUDA HEDIYALA, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 19d. SRI. SHANKRAPPA S/O BHARAMAGOUDA HIDIYALA, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 20. SRI. MALATESH @ KUMAR S/O BHARAMAGOUDA HEDIYALA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 21. SRI. SHANKRAPPA S/O BHARAMAGOUDA HEDIYALA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R18, R20, R21; NOTICE TO R3(b), R3(c), R4(a TO c), R5, R6(a AND b), R7, R8(a TO c), R9(a AND b), R10 TO R12, R14, R17 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R19 (b TO d) IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R3(a); R6(d) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R6(c) AND R19(a) IS RETURNED WITH “NO SUCH PERSON”; PETITION AGAINST R13 IS ABATED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2017 ON I.A. NO.14 IN O.S. NO.121/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDITIONAL JMFC, RANEBENNUR, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H, AND ALLOW THE I.A. NO.14 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.07.2017 passed on I.A.No.XIV in O.S.No.121/2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur1. 3. The Trial Court rejected the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the plaint. 4. The suit is for declaration and injunction. Initially, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they have a right of way through the property of defendants No.1 and 2, and they also sought an injunction on the premise that defendants No.1 and 2 were obstructing their use in the said pathway. The suit was filed against 21 defendants. In the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that the remaining defendants have not obstructed to the plaintiffs use of the alleged suit road and were impleaded only because the road is said to pass through their respective lands. Subsequently, in 1 For short, ‘Trial Court’ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 the year 2015, an application was filed alleging that the other defendants had also started obstructing the plaintiffs’ use of the suit road. Therefore, an application was filed seeking amendment of the plaintiffs to incorporate reliefs against the remaining defendants, which reliefs were not sought when the suit was initially filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that the cause of action shown in the plaint and the cause of action shown in the application seeking amendment are different. Even if the proposed amendment is allowed, the cause of action shown in the original plaint, which does not show any cause of action against the defendants, against whom now the relief is sought, and same would result in an in consistency. Thus, he would urge that the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. It is indeed true that the suit was filed against several defendants, and that the initially relief was sought only against - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 two defendants on the premise that remaining defendants had not objected to the plaintiffs’ use of the alleged road. Later, an application was filed seeking amendment on the premise that, after the institution of the suit, the remaining defendants started obstructing the suit road. It is also noticed that no amendment has been sought to the cause of action. Since the plaintiffs have not chosen to amend the cause of action, it is for them to explain as to why they have not chosen to amend the cause of action. In case the application for amendment has been rejected, then it is open for the plaintiffs to file a fresh suit against the remaining defendants through law of limitation. 8. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the amendment should be allowed, and if there is any inconsistency arises in the cause of action after the amendment, it is for the defendants to raise such contentions at the time of hearing. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17217 WP No. 109428 of 2017 b) The order dated 14.07.2017 passed on I.A.No.XIV in O.S.No.121/2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, is set aside. c) The amendment is permitted and the plaintiffs shall furnish the amended plaint. d) The defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement. e) The Trial Court shall thereafter try the suit in accordance with law. f) It is made clear that the order permitting amendment should not be construed as having reflected on the plaintiffs claim over the suit schedule property. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1