- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41905 WP No. 2366 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 2366 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE BOMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2. SRI RAMESHA S/O LATE BOMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 3. SMT CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 4. SRI SHANKARA S/O LATE BOMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5. SRI SANNAPPA S/O LATE BOMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT KADALUR VILLAGE, ATHAGUR HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. CHIKKAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS AGRUCULTURAL LABOUR. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41905 WP No. 2366 of 2019 2. SRI RAMAKRISHNA S/O GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS AGRUCULTURAL LABOUR. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KADALUR VILLAGE AND POST ATHAGUR HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 3. KADALUR GRAM PANCHAYATH KADALUR MADDUR TALUK ATHAGAR HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, ADV., FOR R-2, R-3 SERVED; NOTICE TO R-1 H/S) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2018 ONE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIOINAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR ON I.A. NO.21 IN O.S.NO. 196/2004 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.12.2018 passed on IA No.21 in O.S.No.196/2004 by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Maddur. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41905 WP No. 2366 of 2019 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 3. Petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.196/2004 before the jurisdictional Court at Maddur, seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property restraining the defendants, their agents or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, defendant nos.1 to 3 after entering appearance, have filed a detailed written statement opposing the suit claim and it was also contended by the defendants that the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suits schedule property. 4. IA no.21 was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to permit the plaintiffs to amend the prayer made in the suit by incorporating an additional prayer to declare the plaintiffs as the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendant by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41905 WP No. 2366 of 2019 has rejected IA no.21. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the Trial Court has wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioners, wherein a formal prayer for amendment has been made. He submits that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit and the amendment becomes necessary having regard to the contentions urged in the written statement. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the suit was initially filed with a prayer to grant the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. In the said suit, defendant nos.1 to 3 have filed a detailed written statement on 15.01.2005 denying the suit claim and they also have specifically contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property. Thereafter, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41905 WP No. 2366 of 2019 Court had framed issues and the parties to the suit also have led evidence on their behalf, and when the suit was at the stage of final arguments, the present application in IA no.21 was filed. 7. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC clearly provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 8. In the case on hand, in the written statement filed on behalf of defendant nos.1 to 3, they have raised a plea denying the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The said written statement was filed on 15.01.2005 and the application seeking amendment was filed in the year 2018 after a period of 13 years when the suit was at the stage of final arguments . Therefore, it is apparent that the application was belatedly filed and there was no due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs which would have permitted the Trial Court to consider the prayer made in the application. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41905 WP No. 2366 of 2019 Court was fully justified in rejecting the prayer made in the application. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK