- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107153 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BASAVANNEVVA W/O BASAPPA KHANNUR AGE, 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. MALLIGAWAD TQ. HUBBALLI PIN CODE. 580007 2. SMT. SUNANDA W/O GANGADHAR BAVIKATTI AGE, 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. NARAYANPUR TQ. SHIGGAON DIST. HAVERI PIN CODE. 581202 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH.K.JAWALKAR, SRI. SACHIN ANGADI, SRI. S.P.KOLIWAD., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. IRAPPA S/O KALLAPPA SOSARAVI AGE 53 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O KOLIWAD TQ.HUBBALLI, PIN CODE-581195 GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 2. SRI RAMANNA S/O KALLAPPA SOSARAVI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE KOLIWAD TQ. HUBBALLI PIN CODE. 581195 3. SRI SHEKARAPPA S/O KALLAPPA SOSARAVI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE KOLIWAD TQ. HUBBALLI PIN CODE. 581195 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAYAK B. MEGUNDI & SRI. ABHISHEK MAREPPAGOL., ADVOCATES FOR R1-R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR QUASH OR PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AND SET ASIDE OR IMPUGNED THE ORDER ON DATED 08/11/2024, ON I.A.NO.2 APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, THE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-G, IN BEARING CASE NO.OS 185/2022 FILE PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or quash or pass appropriate order and set aside or impugned order dated on 8.11.2024 on I.A.No.2 application under Order 6 Rule17 of CPC, the copy of the impugned order at Annexure-G in bearing case no. O.S.185/2022 file pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, in the interest of justice. b. It is further praying that issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and allow the IA No.2 application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the copy of the impugned order at Annexure-E, in bearing case no. O.S.No.185/2022 file pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi in the interest of justice. c. Pass such other order as deems fit including cost. 2. The petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.185/2022 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hubballi seeking for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, defendants No.1 and 2 entered appearance, filed their written statement, issues were framed, plaintiffs had led evidence; thereafter defendants’ evidence was also led and the said witnesses were cross-examined. 3. Subsequently, defendant No.3 filed his written statement and it is thereafter that the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 Code of Civil Procedure seeking for amendment of the plaint by placing certain pleadings on record in support of an additional prayer to be sought for cancelling alleged partition deed dated 1/7/2017 registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hubbali. 4. The said application having been dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that both the parties have adduced evidence; the matter was posted for final arguments and at that stage, such an amendment cannot be allowed, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order. 5. Sri.Prakash K.Jawalkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the relief which has been sought for by way of amendment is necessary to decide the lis between the parties. The suit being one for partition, all the disputes are to be resolved and as such, the relief of cancelling the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 registered partition deed would be necessary to decide the lis between the parties. 6. Sri.Vinayak B.Begundi, learned counsel for the respondents would submit the matter being posted for cross of PW-1; evidence already having been led; cross-examination having occurred; the admissions made by the plaintiffs would be set at naught if the amendment is allowed. His further submission is that the relief sought for is barred by the law of limitation and as such could not be allowed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers. 8. The suit admittedly had been filed on 21/4/2022. The additional relief which has now been sought for is for cancelling the alleged registered partition deed dated 1/7/2017. In the proposed amendments to be made, the plaintiffs themselves have stated that they did not know the contents of the document when it was registered; however, thereafter they had - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 approached the Sub-Registrar office requesting not to act on the said document when they were informed that the Sub-Registrar office has already sent it to the office of Tahsildar. Hence the plaintiffs filed their objections before the Deputy Tahsildar, Shiraguppi on 5/7/2017 and thereafter registered the RTS case bearing RTS (d)/CR/08/2017-18. 9. If these facts are taken into consideration, the petitioners were aware of the registered partition deed way back on 5/7/2017 and have chosen not to seek for any relief in relation thereto when the suit was filed on 21/4/2022. 10. The said relief being sought for by way of amendment application filed on 14/10/2024 in my considered opinion is ex facie and hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khatri Hotels P.Ltd. & Anr vs Union of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 India & anr.,1 has held that any challenge made to a registered document should be within the period of limitation from the date on which the cause of action first arose. In this matter, the first cause of action accepting the statement of the plaintiffs arose on 5/7/2017 when they had submitted their objection to the Deputy Tahsildar and is ex facie barred by the law of limitation. 11. Insofar as the contention of Sri.Jawalkar that during the covid period, the limitation has been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 has excluded the period of limitation from 15/3/2020 to 28/2/2022 plus 90 days thereafter and if the same is excluded, the amendment would be within time. 1 AIR 2011 SC 3590 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 12. Even if the same is to be accepted, the first cause of action arose on 5/7/2017 and as such the suit ought to have been filed by 4/7/2020. If the period from 15/3/2020 to 4/7/2020 is excluded that would exclude a period of approximately four months. Even if the said period till 28/2/2022 is excluded and the period of 90 days thereafter is provided, the said period also ended on 27/5/2022. The amendment application having been filed on 14/10/2024 is much after the said period of limitation expired. Hence, the petitioner would not also be entitled to the benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020. 13. In that view of the matter, for the reasons assigned by Trial Court as also for the reasons assigned hereinabove, the application for amendment not being sustainable, I do not find any infirmity in the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2403 WP No. 107153 of 2024 order passed by Trial Court. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43