- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1639 WP No. 107408 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107408 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MAYUR S/O. MANOHAR ASAGAONKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 1790, G.K. GOKHALE WADA, KELKAR BAG, BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA SRI. CHIDAMBAR S/O. PRABHAKAR DESHPANDE, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 327, ROY ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BAHUBALI CHINTAMANI AMNAJI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER AND TRUSTEE, AND SECRETARY OF GURUBASADI @ DODDBASADI TRUST, BASEMAN GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. SMT. MANISHA D/O. SHANTAPPA UPADHYA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS, 2. SMT. SARITA W/O. SUNIL NAIK, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H. NO.1364, BASEMAN GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. ASHOK S/O. SHANTAPPA UPADHYE, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2025.02.04 15:45:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1639 WP No. 107408 of 2024 3. SMT. PARPULKUMARI WD/O. ASHOK UPADHYE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BHANDAR BASADI ONI, SHARAVANBELAGOLA, CHANNARAYAPATTAN, DIST: HASAN. 4. SMT. KUSUMA D/O. ASHOK UPADHYE AFTER MARRIAGE KUSUMA (BEBI) W/O. NAGESH JAIN, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. BHANDAR BASADI ONI, SHARAVANBELAGOLA, CHANNARAYAPATTAN, DIST: HASAN. 5. SRI. MANOHAR CHANDAPPA UPADHYE, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: RTD., R/O. PLOT NO.630, ARIHANT BUILDING, SHREE NAGAR SECTOR, NO.V, M.M. EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A I.E. ORDER DATED 04-11-2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.21 IN O.S. NO.175/2014 BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BELAGAVI; REJECT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IN O.S. NO.175/2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1639 WP No. 107408 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Registry to show the name of learned counsel Sri D. Ravikumar Gokakakar as appearing for petitioner. Notice to respondents is dispensed with in view of proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order at Annexure-A i.e. order dated 04-11-2024 passed on I.A. No.21 in O.S. No.175/2014 by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge Belagavi; b. Reject the Application filed by the first respondent under Order VI Rule 17 of the code of civil procedure, in O.S. No.175/2014, pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi. c. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this court deems it fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. A suit in O.S. No.175 of 2014 had been filed seeking for declaration that a Compromise Decree was null and void and not binding of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction and declaration that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1639 WP No. 107408 of 2024 registered Gift Deed was illegal and void and the entries made in the name of defendant No.3 as null and void and permanent injunction against defendant No.3 etc. 4. When the suit was filed, the description of the plaintiff was given as Shri Bahubali Chintamani Amnaji, age 51 years, occupation Civil Engineer and Trustee. When the matter was posted for cross- examination of DW-1, plaintiff has filed an application seeking for amendment of plaint by substituting the name of plaintiff by Gurubasadi @ Doddabasadi Trust, represented by Shri Bahubali Chintamani Amnaji and Secretary. This application has been allowed. The petitioner is before this court stating that the said order is not proper, inasmuch as the substitution of the plaintiff at the stage of cross examination in order to fill up the lacuna pointed out during the course of cross examination. Substitution of the plaintiff cannot be permitted since a new - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1639 WP No. 107408 of 2024 plaintiff would be coming on record. The only substitution which can be permitted is in terms of Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC and not otherwise. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri D. Ravikumar Gokakar and perused the papers. 6. A perusal of the plaint in OS.No.175/2014 more particularly at para No.2 which indicates that Shri Dodabasadi @ Gurubasadi, 1008 Neminath Digamber Jain Basadi situated at Basavana Galli belonging to the devotees of pancham Jain samaj of Belgaum. Thereafter, they have been made various averments as regards the Trustee, who had been appointed, who had retired and subsequently Sri Bahubali Chintamani Amnaji being appointed as a Trustee so also defendant No.2 is also a Trustee and thereafter there are various allegations made as regards how defendant no.2 is seeking to usurp the property of the Trust and pursuant thereto relief sought for. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1639 WP No. 107408 of 2024 7. Having gone through the said pleadings, I am of the considered opinion that the case set up by the plaintiff was that the property belongs to Trust and that Shri Bahubali Chintamani Amnaji was representing the Trust. A clarificatory amendment sought for by way of I.A.No.21, in my considered opinion, does not substitute the plaintiff, but only clarifies a Trust to be represented by the Trustee and as such, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by trial Court. 8. Insofar as the second contention of learned counsel Sri D.Ravikumar Gokakakar that a suit simplicitor would not be maintainable since the subject matter deals with a dispute between Trustees. This aspect would have to be agitated by the petitioner before the trial Court by referring to Section 92(1)(C) the CPC and when such contention is pressed into service would have to be taken into consideration by the trial Court considering that the Trust is now the plaintiff - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1639 WP No. 107408 of 2024 and the dispute arises between a Trust and trustees. Proper orders would have to be passed by the trial Court in that regard. Reserving such liberty, the petition not making out any grounds insofar as the amendment is concerned, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31