- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18084 WP No. 107264 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107264 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI SUBHASH SHANKAR JADHAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 1. SMT. SUREKHA W/O. SUBHASH JADHAV, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H. NO.79/A 5TH CROSS, MACHALAYA NIVA, ADARSH NAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI. 2. KUMARI. SOUPARNIKA D/O. SUBHASH JADHAV, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. H. NO.79/A 5TH CROSS, MACHALAYA NIVA, ADARSH NAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI. 3. KUMARI. SOUJANYA D/O. SUBHASH JADHAV, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. H. NO.79/A 5TH CROSS, MACHALAYA NIVA, ADARSH NAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI. 4. KUMARI. SOUKHYA D/O. SUBHASH JADHAV, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. H. NO.79/A 5TH CROSS, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2025.12.16 11:21:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18084 WP No. 107264 of 2024 MACHALAYA NIVA, ADARSH NAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH N. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SHRIKANT W/O. SHANKAR JADHAV, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER, R/O. SHANKAR KASHI NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. JIJABAI W/O. SHRIKANT JADHAV, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H. NO.79/A 5TH CROSS, MACHALAYA NIVA, ADARSH NAGAR, ANGOL, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHEKHARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. KISHOR SUTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A. NO.15 DATED 14-10-2024 IN O.S. NO.129/2016 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BELAGAVI, VIDE ANNEXURE-E BE PLEASED AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18084 WP No. 107264 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.129/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi1. 2. The Trial Court rejected I.A.No.15 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, seeking amendment. In terms of the proposed amendment, the petitioners intended to incorporate the following words: “is situated at Adarsh Nagar, Angol Belagavi” 3. The objection was filed on the premise that evidence had already commenced and, therefore, the application for amendment was not maintainable. The Trial Court accepted the objection on the premise that the amendment was impermissible after the commencement of 1 For short, ‘Trial Court’ 2 For short, ‘Code’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18084 WP No. 107264 of 2024 evidence and that the petitioners had neither pleaded nor established due diligence. 4. The whole object of the amendment is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It is relevant to notice that even after the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002, the power of the Court to permit the amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial, has not been taken away. It should always be borne in mind that it is not the stage at which the amendment is sought that matters, and in fact, is the nature of the amendment sought matters. 5. In the instant case, the plaintiffs intended to incorporate a sentence to indicate as to where the property is located. Unfortunately, the Trial Court rejected the application on the premise that the evidence has commenced and that the Court had no power to amend the plaint to incorporate words specifying where the property is located. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18084 WP No. 107264 of 2024 6. The Court has also erroneously interpreted the expression found in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which contemplates ‘due diligence’ on the part of the plaintiffs in not incorporating the recitals, which are proposed in the application for amendment. The said expression of ‘due diligence’ found in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, should not be stretched to that extent to say that, in deserving cases the amendment sought shall be rejected. 7. The underlying object of permitting amendment is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Assuming that the amendment is refused and the suit is dismissed for not mentioning the place in which the property is located, the plaintiffs can still to file one more suit indicating the place where the property is located. Unfortunately, same has not been noticed by the Trial Court. 8. Hence the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18084 WP No. 107264 of 2024 ORDER a) The petition is allowed. b) The order dated 14.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.129/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi, is set aside. c) The amendment proposed is permitted by allowing I.A.No.15. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38