- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.18189/2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B. NANJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS SON OF BAJJA REDDY @ MUNIREDDY R/AT 3rd CROSS, MADIWALA EXTENSION BENGALURU 560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUSHALAPPA B.M. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS DAUGHTER OF B. NANJA REDDY. 2. SRI. N. JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SON OF B. NANJA REDDY. BOTH ARE R/AT. 4th MAIN LINK ROAD 3rd CROSS, MADIWALA EXTENSION BENGALURU 560 068. 3. SRI. BAJJA REDDY @ MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS SON LATE CHINNAPPAREDDY. 4. SRI. THIMMARAYAREDDY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 SON BAJJA REDDY @ MUNIREDDY. BOTH ARE R/OF THATTANAHALLI VILLAGE MARSUR POST, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 562 106. 5. SMT. JAYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 6. SRI. RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS SON OF LATE GULLA REDDY. 7. SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS DAUGHTER OF RAMA REDDY. 8. SMT. SARALA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS DAUGHTER OF RAMA REDDY. 9. SMT. NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS DAUGHTER OF RAMA REDDY. 10. SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS SON OF RAMA REDDY. RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 10 ARE R/OF HOSKOTE HULIMANGALA VILLAGE MALLUR TALUK, KOLAR DIST 563 160. 11. SRI. NARAYANA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 12. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAREDDY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 R/O THATTANAHALLI VILLAGE MARSUR POST, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DIST 562 106. 13. SRI. KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O BAJJA REDDY @ MUNREDDY R/OF THATTANAHALLI VILLAGE MARSUR POST, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DIST 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADV., R4, R12 & R13) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED- 07.04.2025, VIDE ANNEXURE- A, PASSED ON I.A.NO.18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. NO.324/2011, BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 07.04.2025 by which the application filed in O.S.No.324/2011 by the petitioner-defendant No.3 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC comes to be rejected by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal. 2. Heard Sri.Kushalappa B.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4, 12 & 13. 3. A suit in O.S.No.324/2011 by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession. The petitioner enters appearance, files his written statement in the year 2017, five years thereafter seeks to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement and would submit that the concerned Court, owing to the objections filed by the co-defendant, rejects the application on the score that the amendment so - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 sought, would be hit by proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the original written statement so filed, all these facts are already narrated. What the petitioner would wanted to do with the amendment is to elaborate those statements made in the written statement, as also, certain other prayers to be added. The learned counsel would submit that it would not change the nature of the written statement, nor would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. 4. The concerned Court answering the application, has held as follows: "ORDER ON IA.No.18 IA.No.18 is filed by the defendant No.3 U/o 6 Rule 17 R/w. Sec.151 of CPC for amendment of written statement of defendant No.3. 2. By way of proposed amendment, the defendant No.3 want to add additional pleadings stating that the grandfather late Chinnappa Reddy during his life time purchased the properties bearing Sy.No.8 measuring 2 acre 15 guntas, house property bearing Khaneshumari No.3 situated at Thattannahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, Sy.No.3 measuring 1 ¾ guntas and 1 guntas, Sy.No.457 measuring 12 guntas situated at Madivala Village, Khaneshumari No.3 consisting of 10 Sq.feet of RCC - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 house, 8 Sq.feet Mangalore tiled house, 4 Sq.feet A.C. sheet house and vacant plot totally 22 ankana situated at Thattanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk under registered sale deed dated 07.07.1932 from one Pilla Reddy. The Chinnappa Reddy executed gift deed dated 21.06.1951 in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 with regard item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of suit schedule properties. By virtue of said gift deed, the defendant No.3 became the absolute owner and in possession of item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and other defendants have no pre- existing right with respect to item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties, unless there is pre- existing right, question of executing release deed dated 21.01.1987 does not arises. Therefore alleged release deed is null and void and not binding on the defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 is the absolute owner and in possession of item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties. One Thimmareddy son of late Chinnappareddy and brother of the defendants have filed suit OS No.171/1954 against the Chinnappa Reddy and his wife Smt. Eramma, defendant No.1 before the 2nd Munsiff, Bengaluru seeking declaration with respect to property bearing Sy.No.8 measuring 3 acre 5 guntas and Sy.No.3 measuring 1 OS No.324/2011 guntas situated at Thattanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk. After trial the said suit came to be partly decreed. The property bearing Sy.No.8 measuring 3 acre 5 guntas and Sy.No.3 measuring 1 guntas are declared as self acquired properties of Thimmareddy and suit came to be dismissed with respect to his ½ share in item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.3 further sought additional prayer to declare that the partition deed dated 09.11.1956 is not binding on the defendant No.3. Further to declare that the defendant No.3 is the absolute owner and in enjoyment of the item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties based on the registered gift deed dated 21.06.1951. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 3. In the accompanying affidavit, it is submitted that at the time of filing of the written statement, due to omission and due to typographical error the above necessary pleadings were not incorporated in the written statement by earlier counsel of the defendant No.3. Therefore the proposed amendment is necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 4. The above application is resisted by the defendant No.6 by filing their objections. In the objections, the defendant No.6 denied the averments of the above application and annexed affidavit. It is contended that this court has already framed issues, plaintiff No.3 got examined as PW.1, PW.1 is fully cross examined by the defendant Nos.2 & 6. The defendant No.6 got examined as DW.1 and produced 62 documents at Ex.D.1 to D.62. When the case was posted for further chief examination of DW.1, the above application came to be filed. The defendant No.3 already filed his written statement and made a counter claim stating that he is also entitle to share in the suit schedule properties. Now by way of proposed amendment, the defendant No.3 want to contend that he is the absolute owner of item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties, such amendment will OS No.324/2011 amount to deletion of admissions made by the defendants in the original written statement. The defendant No.3 is aware about the proceedings in OS No.165/1984 and execution of release deed dated 21.01.1987. The proposed amendment is barred by limitation. Hence the above application is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. The learned counsel for defendant No.3 filed written arguments and argued that due to omission and typographical mistake the above material facts were not pleaded in the written statement. Therefore the proposed amendment is necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute. Merely on the ground of limitation, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 amendment application of the defendants cannot be rejected. In an appropriate case, opportunity should be given to the defendants to amend the written statement even though the relief sought is barred by limitation. Such amendment is necessary in order to avoid further litigation. In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel for defendant No.3 relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ragu thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472, Pankaja and another Vs. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs., others reported in 2004 AIR SCW 4522 and decision of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in OWP No.1353/2011 between Abdul Aziz Bhat Vs. Mohammad Iqbal Bhat and others. On the other hand, the learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 & 6 argued that in the original written statement of defendant No.3, the defendant No.3 has specifically contended that the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties and he has sought for 1/6th share in item Nos.1 & 2 of the suit schedule properties and ½ share in item Nos.3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties. The proposed amendment is totally contradictory to the original written statement of defendant No.3, such amendment will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs and other OS No.324/2011 defendants and it will lead to introduction of new facts especially when issues were framed, PW.1 was fully cross examined by the defendants. The defendant also examined as DW.1. At this belated stage, such amendment cannot be allowed. The defendant No.3 is not diligent in putting forward the proposed amendment before the commencement of trial. In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 & 6 relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Hundari Bewa Vs. Keluni Dei and others reported in AIR 1984 Orissa 37, decision of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in M/s. J.S. Tins Fabricators and others Vs. U.Co. Bank reported in AIR 1994 Himachal Pradesh 33 and decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Mohd. Shamim Farooqi - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 and another Vs. Delhi Wakf Board reported in AIR 1985 Delhi 464. 6. In the light of the arguments advanced by both side, I have perused the entire material on record. In the original written statement of the defendant No.3 there is specific mention about the judgment and decree passed in OS No.165/1984 and also regarding execution of release deed dated 21.01.1987. The defendant No.3 is very much aware about the execution of release deed dated 21.08.1987. The defendant No.3 in the original written statement sought for the relief of counter claim admitting that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. The defendant No.3 sought for 1/6th share in item Nos.1 & 2 of the suit schedule properties and ½ share with respect to item Nos.3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties. Contradictory to the said pleadings, by way of proposed amendment the defendant No.3 want to claim additional relief by way of counter claim stating that defendant No.3 is absolute owner and in possession of item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties by way of registered gift deed dated 21.06.1951. The defendant No.3 claiming absolute right based on the gift deed which was executed in the year 1951. The defendant OS No.324/2011 No.3 is very much aware about the execution of said gift deed even prior to filing of his written statement. Despite having knowledge about the said gift deed he did not plead the same in the original written statement. 7. After filing of the written statement, this court has framed the issues, the plaintiffs got examined as PW.1 and PW.1 was fully cross examined. The defendant No.6 got examined as DW.1 and when the case was posted for further evidence of DW.1, the above application is filed to introduce major amendment to the written statement. The proposed amendment is quite contrary to the contention taken by the defendant No.3 in the original written statement. Therefore the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 defendant No.3 is not diligent in putting forward the proposed amendment before the commencement of trial. The proposed amendment is contradictory to the pleadings in the original written statement. The proposed amendment will amounts to deletion of admissions made in the original written statement. In the original written statement, the defendant No.3 sought for share in all the properties admitting that those properties are joint family properties. However by way of proposed amendment, the defendant No.3 want to contend that the item Nos.1, 3 to 6 are self acquired properties. The said contradictory pleadings cannot be introduced by way of amendment. If the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the entire nature of the suit and will also nullify the defence taken by the other defendants. The proposed amendment will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs and other defendants. The defendant No.3 is failed to establish that despite due diligence he could not put forward the proposed amendment before commencement of trial. Further the relief sought by way of proposed amendment is barred by limitation. The suit is filed in the year 2011, the defendants have filed their written statement on 19.01.2017. The above application is filed on 14.03.2022. Under OS No.324/2011 such circumstances, even on the ground of limitation, the proposed amendment cannot be entertained. Under such circumstances, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ragu Thilak D. John’s case and Pankaja’s case referred supra are distinguishable and not applicable to the case on hand. The defendant No.3 has failed to make out sufficient ground to allow the proposed amendment. Hence in the interest of justice, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER IA.No.18 filed by the defendant No.3 U/o 6 Rule 17 R/w. Sec.151 of CPC is hereby rejected." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. arising out of SLP(C) No.30324/2019. The learned counsel submits that the Apex Court holds that all amendments should be permitted. There can be no qualm about the principles so laid down by the Apex Court. The issue is whether the amendment would be necessary or the amendment would take away, already concluded examination or cross examination, as the case would be. 6. The amendment so sought by the petitioner, even according to him, is only an elaboration of the earlier written statement. Therefore, there would be no warrant for the petitioner to elaborate it by seeking amendment. The petitioner is at liberty to urge all those contentions at the appropriate stage before the concerned Court. Finding no perversity in the order dated 07.04.2025 so passed by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34099 W.P. No.18189/2025 the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the petition stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19