- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33932 WP No. 8261 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 8261 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI, D/O. LATE VENKATAIAH, W/O. SRI. KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. No.14, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, NMH LAYOUT, KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 073. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O. LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. No.59, 3RD CROSS, GANAPATHI NAGAR, NEAR MEI COLONY, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058. 2. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. No.40, 10TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096. …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33932 WP No. 8261 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDING ORDER DATED 20.02.2023 PASSED ON IA No.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC BY THE VII CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-19) IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION SEEKING TO AN AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE TO THE PLAINT IN OS.No.1357/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are served but remained unrepresented. 2. The plaintiff in O.S. No.1357/2021 has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed in I.A. No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition against Respondent Nos.1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit, the dispute was amicably resolved before the Lok Adalat. Pursuant to the settlement, a joint memo was filed before the Trial Court, which - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33932 WP No. 8261 of 2023 thereafter passed a decree in terms of the joint memo. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking to amend the boundaries of Schedule Item No.1 in the plaint. The proposed amendment sought to alter the boundaries on the northern and southern sides, namely, to amend Property No.37 on the northern side to Property No.36 and Property No.38 on the southern side to Property No.37. The defendants filed objections to the application. By the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the application, holding that once a decree is passed in terms of the joint memo pursuant to the settlement before the Lok Adalat, no amendment to the schedule is permissible. 4. Sri Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the proposed amendment pertains to Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. According to the joint memo, the entirety of Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties has been assigned to the plaintiff. No other parties to the suit or signatories to the joint memo have any right, title, or interest in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. Learned counsel further submits that, if the typographical error in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33932 WP No. 8261 of 2023 description of boundaries in the plaint schedule is not rectified, the petitioner’s rights would be prejudicially affected and may result in a defect in his title. 4.1 Learned counsel further submits that, if the amendment is permitted, it would neither alter the identity of the property nor affect the measurements or the terms agreed upon by the parties before the Lok Adalat. He further submits that, for the purpose of correcting the boundaries after the decree, pursuant to the joint memo before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner has no remedy other than to approach the Trial Court for correction in the plaint. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. 6. The petitioner filed a suit for partition in respect of eight items of property as mentioned in the plaint. The present writ petition concerns Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. Item No.1 is a site bearing No.36, carved out of Sy.No.141/3, Bengaluru, measuring East-West 40’ and North-South 15’. The property is bounded on the East by a road; on the West by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33932 WP No. 8261 of 2023 Property Nos.42 and 43; on the North by Property No.37; and on the South by Property No.38. The proposed amendment seeks to alter the northern boundary to Property No.36 instead of No.37 and the southern boundary to Property No.37 instead of No.38. 7. The petitioner’s contention that Item No.1 is wholly assigned to his share is borne out by the joint memo. Paragraph 3 of the joint memo indicates that Item No.1 has fallen to the share of the petitioner. The defendants have no right, title, or interest in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. Although the defendants filed objections, which are in the nature of formal denials, they have not raised any substantial objection to the amendment of the boundaries on the northern and southern sides. The defendants have also not contended that allowing the amendment would alter the identity of the property as settled between the parties. Such an apprehension is unfounded, particularly as Item No.1 is allotted solely to the petitioner. If the correction or amendment sought is not permitted, a defect in the petitioner’s title to Item No.1 would persist. Conversely, allowing the amendment would - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33932 WP No. 8261 of 2023 perfect his title, and there is no material to suggest that it would prejudice the rights of the defendants or any other party. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in WP No.53839/2014, contending that amendment or correction in the plaint is permissible even after the passing of a decree. In the judgment cited, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court held that correction in the plaint cannot be denied. Section 151 of the CPC empowers the Court to allow corrections to ensure that parties are not deprived of the fruits of a decree. The present mistake concerns the description of the property after the decree. It is held that, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, the amendment sought can be permitted. 9. The material on record prima facie indicates that permitting the amendment or correction would not alter the identity of Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to entertain the present writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33932 WP No. 8261 of 2023 10. Accordingly, the following: Order i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 20.02.2023 on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1357/2021 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.2 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.1357/2021 is allowed. iv) The Trial Court is directed to carryout the corrections in the decree accordingly. SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43