- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50020 WP No. 13540 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 13540 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. K.S GOPALAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, R/O KUNTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 2. SMT PREMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,, W/O KRISHNAPPA, D/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.21, WARD NO.132, MARUTHI NAGAR, VI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE. 3. SMT SHANTHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA GOWDA, D/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, R/O KANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 4. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, R/O KUNTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50020 WP No. 13540 of 2020 BANNUR HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. 5. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, R/O KUNTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIMALA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, D/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.142, II MAIN ROAD, LAGGERE, CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (V/O/D 01.12.2025 NOTICE TO R-1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DTD 12.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T. NARASIPURA REJECTING IA NOS.9 AND 10 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF THE CPC IN OS NO.3/2016 VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50020 WP No. 13540 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Defendants are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.10.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.9 and 10 in O.S.No.3/2016 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court. 3. Respondent herein has filed O.S.No.3/2016 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and has opposed the suit claim. I.A.Nos.9 and 10 were filed on behalf of defendant No.1 with a prayer to permit him to amend his written statement. Said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing objection. The Trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50020 WP No. 13540 of 2020 Court vide the order impugned has rejected I.A.Nos.9 and 10 and being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court. 4. Perusal of the proposed amendment in I.A.No.9 as well as in I.A.No.10 would go to show that defendant No.1 does not propose to introduce a totally new case and on the other hand, certain corrections are sought to be made in the written statement filed by him. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of defence nor does it amount to withdrawing any admission made by defendant No.1 in the written statement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Another - (2022) 16 SCC 1, has observed that defendant is entitled to take inconsistent stand in his written statement whereas the plaintiff cannot do so. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though the principle applicable for amendment of plaint and amendment of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50020 WP No. 13540 of 2020 written statement are the same, the Court should be more liberal while considering an application seeking amendment of the written statement, since the prejudice that would be caused to the other side would be minimum. Hyper technical approach by the Courts have been dipricated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court while considering an application seeking amendment of pleadings. Application for amendment in normal circumstances should be allowed so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Trial Court in the present case has rejected the application solely for the reason that the same was filed after commencement of trial. The proviso to Order VI Rule 7 does not completely bar filing of any amendment application after trial commences. The party seeking amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial should prima facie prove to the Court that in spite of his due diligence, he could not make necessary application seeking amendment. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50020 WP No. 13540 of 2020 5. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that mistakes in the written statement was noticed during the course of plaintiffs evidence and immediately thereafter necessary application seeking amendment is filed. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.Nos.9 and 10. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.10.2020 passed on I.A.Nos.9 and 10 in O.S.No.3/2016 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura is set aside and consequently I.A.Nos.9 and 10 stands allowed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18