- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26895 W.P. No.4852/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4852/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHA W/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI. INDRA KUMAR .K S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NO.10 P V N LANE, IST CROSS NAGARATHPET, BENGALURU-560002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAMARTH S. LOKRE, ADV.,) AND: SMT. MUNITHANAMMA ALIAS CHINNAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA. SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LR'S. 1. SMT. SHARADA W/O LATE M. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT NO.125, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR BENGALURU-560019. 2. KUM. CHANDRA D/O LATE M. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.125, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR BENGALURU-560019. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26895 W.P. No.4852/2020 3. SRI. MEGHANATH S/O LATE M. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.125, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR BENGALURU-560019. 4. SMT. LALITHA D/O LATE M. RANGASWAMY AGED AOBUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.125, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR BENGALURU-560019. 5. SRI. THULASI RAM S/O LATE M. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.125, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR BENGALURU-560019. 6. SRI. SATISH KUMAR .K S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.10, P V N LANE IST CROSS, NAGARATHPET BENGALURU-560002. 7. SMT. K. ASHA KUMARI D/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.10, P V N LANE IST CROSS, NAGARATHPET BENGALURU-560002. 8. SRI. K. NARANJAN S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.10, P V N LANE IST CROSS, NAGARATHPET BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (R2, R3, R4 & R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:16.06.2020 NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 D/W V/O/DTD:25.09.2023 R2 TO R5 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26895 W.P. No.4852/2020 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION. GRANT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNX-A DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1911/2006, BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SENIOR DIVISION) AT DEVANAHALLI, IN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed in OS.No.1911/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. 2. Sri.Samarth S. Lokre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession against respondent Nos.1 to 5. The petitioners filed affidavit evidence and thereafter, filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint on the ground that some of the joint family properties were left out by inadvertence in the suit. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the controversy between the parties, as the suit is for partition and separate possession and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26895 W.P. No.4852/2020 unless these properties which are left out from the plaint by oversight are not added, the injustice would be caused to the plaintiffs as well as to the defendants. It is also submitted that the proposed amendment would neither change the nature of the suit nor cause any hardship to the other side as they also get proportionate share if the suit is decreed. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Though notice is served on the other side, there is no representation. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 5. The material on record indicates that the petitioners filed a suit in OS.No.1911/2006 seeking for relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share over the suit schedule property. The suit is filed in the year 2006 mentioning one property as a joint family property. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, denied - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26895 W.P. No.4852/2020 the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs and sought for dismissal of the suit. The petitioners examined PW1 and thereafter, filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code Of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to amend the plaint by adding some of the properties mentioned in the application as the suit schedule properties. The Application came to be rejected by the trial Court. The proposed amendment sought by the petitioners is to incorporate item Nos.2 to 6 in the schedule of the plaint and also averments supporting the said insertion. The primary contention of petitioners is that one Sri.K.Muniswamappa died long back leaving behind the plaintiff No.1's mother-in-law, defendant No.1 and other family members and during the lifetime of Sri.K.Muniswamappa, he executed registered Will dated 15.07.1945 bequeathing all the properties belonged to him to his family members, who are the legatees under the said Will. The explanation offered for the non-inclusion of the properties referred in the application is that while - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26895 W.P. No.4852/2020 drafting the plaint these properties have been left out by oversight by the typist and in a suit for partition, it is mandate to include all the joint family properties. The suit was admittedly filed in the year 2006 and the proposed amendment was sought after the commencement of trial and the application for amendment was filed on 09.07.2018, which is more than 11 years. The trial Court considering the said aspect has rightly rejected the application by imposing cost of Rs.500/-. 6. I have perused the grounds of the application and found them not sufficient to be accepted to allow the application for the proposed amendment. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27