- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52549 WP No. 20145 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 20145 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. B R NETHRAVATHI D/O B.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3/5, AKA SUBBANNA LAYOUT HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU- 560 048. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B R RAMAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3/5, AKA SUBBANNA LAYOUT HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU- 560 048 2. SMT MANJULA @ MANJULAMMA D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.42, 2ND BLOCK, AYYAPPANAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU- 560 036. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52549 WP No. 20145 of 2025 3. SMT GAYATHRI D/O MANJULA @ MANJULAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.42, 2ND BLOCK, AYYAPPANAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU- 560 036. 4. SRI. B R MANJULA D/O B.R.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/5, AKA SUBBANNA LAYOUT, HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 048 5. SRI B R SHIVAPRASAD S/O B R RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3/5, AKA SUBBANNA LAYOUT HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560048. 6. SRI B R RAGHAVENDRA KUMAR S/O B R RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/5, AKA SUBBANNA LAYOUT, HOODI VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560048. 7. SRI. B R SRINIVASA MURTHY D/O B.R.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/5, AKA SUBBANNA LAYOUT, HOODI VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52549 WP No. 20145 of 2025 MAHADEVAPURA POST, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560048 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHASKAR BABU H J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 TO R7- NOTICE D/W V/O DTD 25/07/2025) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-E DTD. 06.03.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 5851/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-67 AT BANGALORE UNDER IA-11. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court as the plaintiffs and defendants. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff No.2 in OS.No.5851/2020. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for partition and separate possession. When the matter was at the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52549 WP No. 20145 of 2025 stage of recording evidence, plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to carry out certain amendments. The amendment sought to be incorporated is to substitute the initials of plaintiff No.3. Second, to correct the measurement of suit schedule item No.1 property. Thirdly, to include SRI ADITYA TECHNO SCHOOL after the Schedule 'B', which is item No.2 in the schedule in the plaint. 4. This application was vehemently resisted by the defendants before the trial Court and by accepting the said objections, the trial Court rejected the application. Against which the plaintiff No.1 is before this Court. On a careful perusal of the application, the amendment is very minor, which may not really affect the case of the plaintiffs or cause any adverse impact on the defendants, so also one of the reasons for rejection of the application is on the ground that there is no Schedule 'B' property. Accordingly, the amendment came to be rejected. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52549 WP No. 20145 of 2025 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff No.2 that the amendment does not cause any change in the nature of the suit or cause of action or any adverse impact on the defendants with regard to the suit or the reliefs except for including substituting the initials, correcting the measurement of suit item No.1 property and adding the word SRI ADITYA TECHNO SCHOOL next to item No. 2 of the suit schedule which is wrongfully mentioned as Schedule 'B' property. Therefore, he seeks to allow the petition. Consequently, allow the application for amendment, and permit him to carry out the amendment. 6. Per contra, learned counsel of the respondents contends that he would not have much objection if the amendment is permitted. However, the trial Court be directed to expedite the matter in view of the fact that the defendant No.1 is aged more than 80 years and the plaintiffs are unnecessarily prolonging and protracting the matter. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52549 WP No. 20145 of 2025 7. Having heard learned counsel for both parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petition requires to be allowed. Amendment also consequently requires to be allowed. When an application for amendment is filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, all amendments that are filed prior to the commencement of trial are generally to be allowed. So also subsequent applications made after the trial are also to be allowed considering the facts and circumstances of each case and if there is any due diligence made out, which does not change the nature of the suit, cause of action or any adverse impact on the defendants. Such amendments are generally required to be allowed, may be by imposing costs if they are filed at a very belated stage. 8. The present application is filed at the stage where the evidence of the plaintiffs is adduced, and it is posted for further evidence. The amendments per se do not change the nature of the suit or cause of action or cause any adverse impact. Except for a typographical error - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52549 WP No. 20145 of 2025 in mentioning 'B' schedule property in the said item No. 2. Therefore, I do not find any good ground made out by the defendant to reject the application. The findings given by the trial Court are perverse and illegal. The same requires to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is allowed. 2. The impugned order passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge on IA No.11 in OS.No.5851/2020 dated 06.03.2025 is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.11 seeking amendment of the plaint is allowed. The petitioner to carry out the amendment. 3. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2020 and the defendant No.1 is aged more than 80 years, the trial Court shall decide and dispose of the matter expeditiously. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52549 WP No. 20145 of 2025 4. Any parties seeking unnecessary adjournments will be liable to pay costs. The trial Court is at liberty to impose costs on the parties seeking unnecessary adjournments. 5. Both learned counsels agree that they will cooperate for expeditious disposal of the case within an outer limit of 8 months. In view of such submission, both the parties shall cooperate for the disposal of the suit within the specified time, i.e., an outer limit of 8 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 6. In view of the disposal of this petition, pending applications, if any, would pale into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5