- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29201 WP No. 13291 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13291 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O LATE K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 2. SMT. M.NIRMALA D/O LATE K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SMT. N.ANUSUYA D/O LATE K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4. SRI. RAVEENDRA.M S/O LATE K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. SMT. M.RAJESHWARI D/O LATE K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT SC COLONY, VEMGAL VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.V.NARASIMHAMURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVASA.B.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O GORAPPA, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29201 WP No. 13291 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102. 2. SMT. SRIRANGAMMA W/O SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102. 3. SMT. MANGALA GOWRAMMA W/O VEERABADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT VEMGAL VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102. 4. 4(a) SRI. S.N.SAMPANGI RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR'S, N.S.RAMAKRISHNA, S/O LATE SAMPANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4(b) SRI. RAJAPPA S/O LATE SAMPANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4(c) SRI. MURALI S/O LATE SAMPANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALLL ARE R/AT NAGANALA VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.G.KANDEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R3-HELD SUFFICIENT & PLACED EX-PARTE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29201 WP No. 13291 of 2021 V/O DATED:31.08.2021; NOTICE TO R4(a), (b) & (c)-HELD SUFFICIENT & PLACED EX-PARTE V/O DATED:30.09.2021) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.G.V.Narasimhamurthy., counsel on behalf of Sri.Srinivasa.B.V., for the petitioners and Sri.Manjunath G.Kandekar., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. An emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on 26.07.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. She has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar on an interim application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC in R.A.No.18/2019 vide Annexure-C is called into question in this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29201 WP No. 13291 of 2021 Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The point that requires consideration is whether the Appellate Court justified in rejecting the amendment application. 6. Suffice it to note that plaintiffs filed a suit seeking certain reliefs. The petitioner's father Sri.Muniyappa was the third defendant in the suit. He had filed a detailed written statement and certain admissions were made by him. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2018 decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred in R.A.No.18/2019 before the Appellate Court. In the appeal, the petitioners applied under Order 6 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC to amend the Written statement filed by their father. They intended to delete the entire pleadings in Para No.11 and 12 of the Written statement. The application is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-B. Sri.Raveendra S/o.Muniyappa - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29201 WP No. 13291 of 2021 has sworn to a declaration of facts. He has made certain allegations against the counsel who represented his father stating that he did not take precautions to file proper written statement and did not file additional written statement. The petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Muniyappa, who was defendant No.3. Based on his instruction, his counsel had filed the written statement. During his lifetime, he had no grievance. The admissions made by the father cannot be withdrawn and the petitioners cannot improve their case by additions or deletions by way of an amendment after a lapse of seven years. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Because of rejection of Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32