- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 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. 8321 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SON OF LATE P. NYATHA REDDY AND LATE SMT. GOVINDAMMA, RESIDING AT CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.Y.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI V. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SON OF P. VENKATARAMANA REDDY, RESIDING AT HAROHALLI, HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 2. SRI. V. PAPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 SON OF P. VENKATARAMANA REDDY, RESIDING AT HAROHALLI, HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 3. SRI. V. GOVINDA RAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF P. VENKATARAMANA REDDY, C/O "S.V. FERTILIZERS", HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 4. SRI. V. PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF P. VENKATARAMANA REDDY, RESIDING AT HAROHALLI, HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 5. SRI. V. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF P. VENKATARAMANA REDDY, RESIDING AT C/O "RAGHAVENDRA MEDICALS AND GENERAL STORES", JANATHA COLONY, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSUR ROAD, OPP. THIRUMALA PETROL BUNK, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 6. SMT. V. VEENA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF P. VENKATARAMANA REDDY AND WIFE OF B.N. VENKATESH REDDY, RESIDING AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125. 7. SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SON OF LATE P. NYATHA REDDY, RESIDING AT GOVINDA AGRAHARA, HOSUR TALUK, TAMIL NADU - 635 126. 8. SRI. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE P. NYATHA REDDY, RESIDING AT ZUZUWADI, HOSUR TALUK, TAMIL NADU - 635 126. 9. SMT. GIRIJAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, 10. SRI. NITISH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SON OF LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, THE RESPONDENTS No.9 AND 10 ARE RESIDING AT ZUZUWADI, HOSUR TALUK, TAMIL NADU - 635 126. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 11. SMT. YESHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE P. NYATA REDDY, RESIDING AT BINNAMANGALAM, DENKANIKOTTA TALUK, TAMIL NADU - 635 118. 12. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE P. NYATA REDDY, WIFE OF CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, RESIDING AT BOMMANDAPALLY, HOSUR, TALUK, TAMIL NADU - 635 109. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19/10/2024 MADE ON IA NO. 20 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN OS NO. 1076/2006 (OLD OS NO. 655/2005) ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL, PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-F TO THE WP AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Y. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for Sri C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 19.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.20 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 3. Originally, Smt. Govindamma instituted O.S. No.655/2005, which was subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.1076/2006, seeking partition and separate possession of 27 items of the schedule properties. The respondent-defendants filed their written statement denying the plaint averments, and thereafter, the trial Court framed issues. Upon the death of the original plaintiff, the petitioner was impleaded as plaintiff. In the year 2023, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to include additional schedule items numbered 28 to 32. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing their objections, specifically contending that the properties sought to be included in the amendment were acquired subsequent to the partition and after the filing of the suit. 4. The trial Court, taking into consideration the contention of the defendants that the partition had been effected in the year 1994 and registered in the year 2004, that the suit came to be filed in 2005, and that the properties proposed to be included by way of amendment were acquired subsequent to the registered partition and the filing of the suit, proceeded to reject the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the properties now sought to be included were not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time of filing the suit. It is further submitted that the said properties were acquired out of the proceeds derived from the original - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 properties. It is contended that if the amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants and it would, in fact, avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The suit was instituted in the year 2005, and the defendants have filed their written statement. From the impugned order, it is evident that the plaintiff has been cross-examined by the defendants. In their objections to the amendment application, the defendants contended that, in order to overcome the admissions made by PW.1 during cross-examination, the proposed amendment has been sought after a lapse of 19 years, without any justifiable reason. It was further contended that the properties sought to be included by way of amendment were acquired subsequent to the filing of the suit and, therefore, cannot form part of the partition suit. The trial Court, having noticed that the suit pertains to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 year 2005 and that the application for amendment was filed after 19 years and subsequent to the cross- examination of PW.1, also observed that the defendants had pleaded that partition had been effected in 1994 and registered in 2004. The trial Court further recorded a finding that the plaintiff is attempting to delay the proceedings and harass the defendants. 8. On perusal of the application filed for amendment, it is evident that no justifiable reason has been made out as to why the properties proposed to be included were not brought into the suit at the initial stage. The suit has already suffered inordinate delay. Further, if the amendment were to be allowed in a lenient manner, it would prejudice the rights of the defendants and cause further delay in the proceedings. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 9. The suit pertains to the year 2005 and, as submitted, is presently at the stage of cross-examination of PW.1. The trial Court appears not to have taken adequate steps to dispose of this suit, which has remained pending for nearly 20 years. Though this Court ordinarily does not issue directions to the trial Court for time-bound disposal of proceedings, the present case constitutes an exception, having regard to the minimal progress made during two decades of pendency. 10. In the above circumstances, this Court is constrained to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The parties to the suit are directed to extend their co-operation to ensure expeditious disposal of the proceedings. 11. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, for necessary action. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33789 WP No. 8321 of 2025 12. With the above observations, the writ petition is not entertained and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15