- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21043 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI A.M.MAYANNA S/O. LATE M. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALSO R/AT APS STORES, KEMPEGOWDA SCHOOL ROAD, GANGANNA BADAVANE, SANNAKI BAYALU, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGARA, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGARA WARD, BENGALURU – 560 079. 2. SRI A.M.KUMARA S/O. LATE M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT: ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. 3. SRI A.M.RAVI S/O LATE M. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI DEVARAJ A.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI A.M.MADAIAH S/O LATE A.M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. AND ALSO RESIDING AT NO. 2842, 8TH F CROSS, 14TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 2. SRI A.M.MAYANNA S/O LATE A.M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. SRI A.M.BORAIAH @ A.M.BORE GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 3. SMT.GEETHA, W/O. LATE A. M. BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 4. SRI B.NIKITH S/O. LATE A.M.BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.20, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096. 5. SRI A.M.PUTTAGOWDA S/O. LATE A. M. MADIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 301/1, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003. 6. SRI A.M.RAMESH S/O. LATE A.M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 25, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PIPE LINE, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003. 7. SRI A.M.MAYIGAYYA S/O. LATE A.M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT RAJANNA BUILDING, VINAYAKA NAGARA, 3RD CROSS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 8. SMT. MANCHAMMA D/O LATE A.M.MADAIAH, W/O. BILLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT KAAMIDODDI VILLAGE, NIDASALE DAKLE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130. 9. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE A.M.MADAIAH, W/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NIDSALE DAKHALE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130. 10. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH (DOLLA) AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 11. SRI PUTTALINGAIAH (NATHAPPA) S/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT: ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. 12. SRI DODDONU S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. 13. SRI A.N.NANJEGOWDA S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. 14. SRI SHIVANNA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT: ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. 15. SRI PUTTASWAMY S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT: ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. SRI M.MADAIAH S/O LATE MAYANNA @ KUNTEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., 16. SMT. SAMPATHAMMA, W/O LATE M. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT: ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 17. SMT. MANCHAMMA W/O. LATE KALAIAH B.C., D/O LATE M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130. 18. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O BETTASWAMY, D/O. LATE M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT PALACE HONNAMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130. 19. CHIKKAMMA @ MADHUSHREE D/O.LATE M.MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. 20. SMT. SUSHEELA @ SHASHIKALA W/O. MARAYANA, D/O. LATE M. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BASAVALINGANA DODDI VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. 21. SRI A.M.MADAIAH S/O. LATE PURUSHALINGI MADEGOWDA, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. 22. SRI. SANNEGOWDA S/O LATE HONNYKADINA MOTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANKANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ATHAGURU HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SOMANNA K.P., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 20/07/2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR IN O.S.NO. 366/2014 REJECTING THE IA NO. 16 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SEC 151 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT, UNDER ANNEXURE-A THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - defendant Nos.7(b), 7(c) and 7(d) are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 20.07.2023, passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, whereby, an application – I.A.No.16 filed by defendant Nos.7(b), 7(c) and 7(d), under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking permission to amend the written statement, in O.S.No.366/2014, comes to be rejected. 2. Heard Sri Devaraj A.S., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Somanna K.P., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 9. Notice to respondent Nos.10 to 22 is dispensed with in terms of the order dated 21.09.2023. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 - plaintiff Nos.1 to 8 institute a suit in O.S.No.366/2014 against the petitioners and respondent Nos.10 to 22 seeking injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.4, 7 and 8 filed their written statement on 09.10.2015. Defendant No.7 dies during the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 proceedings and the legal representatives are brought on record. An amendment application is filed. The legal representatives, the present petitioners came on record and file their written statement on 20.07.2019. The examination and cross-examination of the parties get concluded. On 19.06.2023, 4 years after filing of the written statement and 9 years after institution of the suit, the application – I.A.No.16 comes to be filed seeking to amend the written statement. The amendment sought for in the written statement was to bring in certain records, which the defendant had already brought in a comprehensive suit of declaration and mandatory injunction in O.S.No.3/2014, in which the respondents – plaintiffs were the defendants. The concerned Court rejects the application on the score that it does not satisfy the rigor of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC, which needs due diligence to be exercised by the parties while filing the written statement or the plaint, as the case would be. The rejection of which has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the grounds urged in the application and seek that the application - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 be allowed as that the plaint is already amended in O.S.No.3/2014, instituted by the present petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents – plaintiffs would take this Court through the affidavit filed by the petitioners as well as all the defendants seeking amendment, to contend that it would not be of any use for them to amend the written statement filed in the subject suit, as the affidavit itself indicates that it would be useful in the suit in O.S.No.3/2014. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The timeline in filing the application – I.A.No.16 seeking amendment is nine years after the institution of the suit and four years after the written statement being filed by the very petitioners. The affidavit in support of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, insofar as it is germane reads as follows: “3. I submit that, earlier there was no declarative reliefs in my original suit No.03/2014, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 recently I added the declarative relief in the said suit, my original suit was amended by me as per the court order recently as such in order to bring fresh and addl defence and facts and it is subsequent to the my written statement as such now filling this amendment application. 4. I submit that, after filing of my written statement in this suit, I have made enquiries with local authorities, competent revenue authorities and other government agencies and step by step, I am able to collected the documents to show that, my grandfather late Mayanna @Kuntegowda having acquired several properties but are not mentioned in my written statement, after verifying and collect some documents know I am adding the same and mentioned the all the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to elaborate explanation of my defence, add additional properties, hence I am filling this affidavit sought for amendment of my written statement in order to avoid complications in future.” (Emphasis added) It is an admitted fact that the present petitioners have instituted a suit in O.S.No.3/2014 seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 in the subject petition are the defendants in O.S.No.3/2014. 8. In the said suit, all these factors have already been brought on record by way of an amendment to the plaint, which has been allowed. Noticing the said facts, the concerned Court has rejected the application, for want of due diligence. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31267 WP No. 21043 of 2023 Therefore, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order so passed by the concerned Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. More so, in the light of the affidavit of the petitioners themselves that it is useful in O.S.No.3/2014 and not the subject suit. 9. The writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42