- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50852 WP No. 9454 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 9454 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. TEJASWINI W/O H.B. SUDHARSHAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O RAMANAHALLI EXTENSION CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 102. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADV., FOR SRI GURURAJ R, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. RADHAMANI W/O RAVINDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O MANASA NAGAR NO.26, 1ST CROSS, GROUND FLOOR NAGARBHAVI H S LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 072. 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SANTHOSHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O PATTAR COMPOUND PARVATHI NILAYA, KANDAL ROAD HOSAMANE EXTENSION CHKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 3. SMT. KAVITHA W/O DHARMANANDA AGED 35 YEARS R/O PATTAR COMPOUND PARVATHI NILAYA, KANDAL ROAD HOSAMANE EXTENSION CHKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50852 WP No. 9454 of 2021 4. SMT. UMA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O HIREMAGALUR EXTENSION BEHIND BUS STOP, JYOTHINAGAR POST CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 102. 5. SRI DR K E KUMARSWAMY S/O LATE ERALAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O BYPASS ROAD, NARIGUDDENAHALLI, JYOTHINAGAR POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 102. 6. SRI H S MUTTAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O HIREMAGALURU VILLAGE JYOTHINAGAR POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 102. 7. SRI H S BHARGAV S/O H S MUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O HIREMAGALURU VILLAGE JYOTHINAGAR POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SIRI R, ADV., FOR SRI SARVANA S, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-4; R-5, R-6 & R-7 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.VIII IN OS NO.38 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU ANNEXURE J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50852 WP No. 9454 of 2021 ORAL ORDER 1. Defendant no.1 is before this Court in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.03.2021 passed on I.A.No.VIII in O.S. No.38 of 2015 by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.38 of 2015 is filed by respondent nos.1 to 4 herein before the jurisdictional civil Court Chikkamagaluru seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits. The contesting defendants including the petitioner herein have filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. I.A.No.VIII was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to permit him to amend his written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs, and the trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.No.VIII. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant no.1 is before the Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50852 WP No. 9454 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that proposed amendment does not in any way change the nature of the defence and proposed amendment only elaborates the contentions urged by the petitioner herein in her original written statement. She submits that in the original written statement, inadvertently, the petitioner has failed to raise a contention that the defendant no.3 had sold the suit schedule property to meet the joint family necessity and therefore it is necessary to amend the written statement at least to the said extent. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 - plaintiff’s has opposed the prayer made in this petition. She also submits that there is no due diligence on the part of the petitioner and therefore the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. She submits that all contentions now sought to be raised in the proposed amendment are already pleaded in the original written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50852 WP No. 9454 of 2021 6. Petitioner herein who is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.38 of 2015 has filed her written statement before the trial Court on 22.02.2015. Perusal of the said written statement would go to show that she has already raised a contention in the said written statement about non-joinder of all the joint family properties. She has also raised a contention that the suit is barred by limitation since the suit schedule properties were sold in the year 2007 itself. In the proposed amendment, defendant no.1 has reiterated the plea of non-joinder of all the joint family properties, non-joinder of parties to the suit and also the question of limitation. As observed herein above, in the original written statement there is already a plea with regard to non-joinder of joint family properties and that the suit is barred by limitation. 7. The petitioner herein is only the purchaser of the suit schedule property and not a family member of the plaintiffs. Defendant nos.3 to 5, who are the brothers of plaintiffs, have not raised any plea in their written statement about non-joinder of parties and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner herein to raise such a contention. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50852 WP No. 9454 of 2021 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the proposed amendment a plea is raised about the sale of the suit schedule property by defendant nos.3 to 5 for family necessity and therefore to the said extent, the written statement needs to be amended. However, perusal of the proposed amendment would go to show that in the affidavit filed in support of the application it is stated that defendant Nos.3 to 5 had not revealed to the purchasers about existence of plaintiffs, who are the sisters of defendant nos.3 to 5. The suit is filed in the year 2015 and when the suit was at the stage of recording plaintiff's evidence, this application is filed seeking amendment of the written statement. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the prayer made in I.A.No.VIII. Though the Courts in normal circumstances are expected to be liberal while considering an application seeking amendment of the written statement, if it is found that the proposed amendments are totally unnecessary or irrelevant, then such amendments need not be allowed. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that trial Court was fully - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50852 WP No. 9454 of 2021 justified in rejecting I.A.No.VIII. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 2015, the trial Court shall make endeavours to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on merits at the earliest. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35