- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45416 W.P. No.20026/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20026/2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LR'S. 1. RENUKAMMA .P D/O T.S. PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT. 7TH CROSS, KSRTC LAYOUT MAHADESHWARA NILAYA MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560091. 2. VARALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE T.S. PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT. 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN KEC 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU 560079. 3. LOKANURAJ B.L. S/O SIDDAGANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 4. CHETHANA B.L. D/O SIDDAGANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. PETITIONER NOS.3 & 4 ARE R/AT NO.41, 6TH CROSS, 19TH WARD KENCHAMMANAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA BENGALURU 560098. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45416 W.P. No.20026/2024 5. MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 6. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.5 & 6 ARE R/AT. THIMMANAHALLY VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 570604. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. RAJESH, ADV., FOR SRI. S.B. MUKKANAPPA, ADV., FOR P1 - P4, & P6) AND: 1. SUSHELAMMA W/O LATE T.A. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT. THIMMANAHALLY VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 570604. BALARAMAIAH DEAD BY LR'S. SANNARANGAIAH DEAD BY LR'S. 2. PREMA W/O SANNARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT RAMDEV LAYOUT BEHIND SHASTHRI GARDEN AVALATTI ROAD, HOLALKERE 577536 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 3. SWETHA D/O SANNARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MARUTHI NILAYA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45416 W.P. No.20026/2024 3RD CROSS, SIDDARAMAPPA EXTENSION HOLALKERE 577536 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 4. SHARATH S/O SANNARANGAIAHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OFFICER IN HDFC BANK KOPPAL 583231. 5. T.A. SREEDEVAMMA D/O ALLAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT SRINIVASA NILAYA 61/19, 20TH CROSS 21ST MAIN, BEHIND MARUTHI MANDIR VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560041. 6. V. MANJUNATH S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.274, 2ND CROSS, 12TH MAIN NAGENDRA BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE BENGALURU 560050. 7. N. SATISHBABU S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.25, 1ST CROSS 5TH MAIN, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD HEBBAL KEMPAPAURA, BENGALURU 560024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1 R1 - R5, R7 SERVED R6 H/S V/O/DTD:02.06.2025) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, IN O.S. NO.100/2015, DATED 27/06/2024 ON I.A. NO.6, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THIS WP & ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45416 W.P. No.20026/2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the orders passed by the learned Addititional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli, in O.S.No.100/2015 dated 27.06.2024 on IA.No.6, vide Annexure F and allow this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.S.Rajesh, learned counsel for Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner No. 5/plaintiff No. 2 filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court solely on the ground that it was filed after the commencement of the trial and despite the petitioners having knowledge of the relevant facts from the written statement filed by the defendants. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45416 W.P. No.20026/2024 submitted that the proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side nor take away any admissions made in the evidence. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') clearly stipulates that no amendment shall be permitted after the commencement of the trial. It is submitted that the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants makes very clear with regard to the partition and re-assigning of the survey numbers. Despite being aware of these facts, the plaintiffs failed to seek amendment at the appropriate time and have filed the present application only when the matter was posted for the defendants’ evidence. Hence, he seeks to sustain the order of the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45416 W.P. No.20026/2024 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.100/2015 for relief of declaration of title that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and also relief of direction to the revenue authorities to make entries with regard to the suit schedule property in the name of plaintiffs. In the said suit, the respondents/defendants filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is noticed that in paragraph No.13 of the written statement there is a specific assertion that there is a partition amongst the defendants and based on such partition, the survey numbers were re-assigned. There is no dispute that these facts were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs when the written statement was filed. However, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45416 W.P. No.20026/2024 plaintiffs have chosen to file an application to bring those facts in the plaint belatedly after the commencement of the trial. In my considered view, the nature of the amendment sought does not alter the character of the suit, nor does it cause prejudice to the defendants. The proposed amendment is not barred by law and does not take away the admissions in the evidence. Moreover, the facts sought to be incorporated are already on record through the written statement. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed so that the suit may be adjudicated on its merits. While this Court cannot overlook the fact that the application was filed belatedly, the same can be allowed on terms. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.06.2024 on IA.No.16 passed in O.S.No.100/2015 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli is hereby set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45416 W.P. No.20026/2024 IA.No.16 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC by the plaintiffs is allowed subject to the plaintiffs paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9