- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15690 WP No. 105742 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.105742 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHAVENDRA S/O PANDURANG SHET, AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PETBAN VADIRAJ COMPLEX, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, LAXMESHWAR, TQ. LAXMESHWAR DIST. GADAG. 2. VADIRAJ S/O PANDURANG SHET, AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PETBAN VADIRAJ COMPLEX, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, LAXMESHWAR, TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.G. NANDOOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.C. CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. NAGARAJ S/O MAHABALESHWAR SHET, AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARESWAR, TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 327. PANDURANG S/O MAHABALESHWAR SHET, AGED ABOUT: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PETBAN VADIRAJ COMPLEX, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, LAXMESHWAR, TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG-582 116. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.20 12:45:41 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15690 WP No. 105742 of 2025 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. RAMDAS S/O MAHABALESHWAR SHET, AGED ABOUT: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DARESWAR, TQ. KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581 327. SMT. NIRMAL W/O NITYANAND SHET, AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: LAXMESHWAR, TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG-582 116. PRAJWAL S/O NITYANAND SHET, AGED ABOUT: 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: LAXMESHWAR, TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG-582 116. SMT. TEJSWININ W/O INDRAJIT VARNEKAR, AGED ABOUT: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. SHANTI KANAK BUILDING, MARAT GALLI, KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 020. SMT. MINAKSHI W/O SHRINIWAS BHATT, AGED ABOUT: 81 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O. MANJUNATH S/O SHRINIWAS BHATT, R/O. 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS ROAD, SAGAR, DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. SMT. KASTURI W/O RATNKAR SHET, AGED ABOUT: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, C/O. VENKATESH MAHABALESHWAR SHET, R/O. MAHALE COMPOUND, HONNAVAR, TQ. AND DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 334. SMT. SUNITA W/O GANAPATI RAYAKAR, AGED ABOUT: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. #35 AKASHAY COLONY, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 021. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15690 WP No. 105742 of 2025 10. 11. SMT. RATNA W/O MANOHAR REVANKAR, AGED ABOUT: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. RENUKA JEWELERS WORKS, NEAR BASAVANNA DEVAR GUDI, KAYI PET, DAVANAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERI-577 004. SMT. RAJESWARI W/O MANJUNATH SHET, AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. UPPAR PET, NEAR ARALIKATTI, SHIVAMOGGA, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERI-577 201. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R6, R10 AND R11 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07-07-2025 ON IA NO.5 UNDER ORDER VI, RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 CPC PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC LAXMESHWAR IN O.S. NO.110/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND TO DISMISS I.A. NO.5 UNDER ORDER VI, RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 CPC ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC LAXMESHWAR IN O.S. NO.110/2023 (ANNEXURE-D). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15690 WP No. 105742 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. The petitioners are assailing the order dated 07.07.2025 permitting the application in I.A.No.V in O.S.No.110/2023 for amendment of plaint in a suit for partition and separate possession. 2. The petitioners who are the defendants contend that suit is filed in respect of the property situated in Lakshmeshwar town and one of the defendants raised a contention that the suit is not maintainable in respect of the properties situated in Dhareshwar village of Kumta Taluk. Under these circumstances, an application is filed by the plaintiff to incorporate the property situated in Dhareshwar village, Kumta taluk. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the plaintiff has admitted the partition dated 15.09.1994, application to amend the plaint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15690 WP No. 105742 of 2025 to incorporate the properties located in Dhareshwar village, Kumta Taluk, which is the subject matter of partition deed dated 15.09.1994, is not maintainable. 4. Learned for respondent No.1-plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff admits the partition deed dated 15.09.1994 and since defendant No.9 (the sister of the plaintiff) has raised a contention that the suit for partition is not maintainable without including the properties situated in Dhareshwar village, Kumta taluk; to avoid technicality, application is filed to include those properties. 5. It is his submission that since defendant No.9 is not a party to the said partition, application is filed to amend the plaint. It is his further contention that plaintiff would stand by the statement that the partition has taken place on 15.09.1994. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15690 WP No. 105742 of 2025 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and produced the records. 7. It is noticed that the suit is not filed by including the properties located in Dhareshwar village, Kumta Taluk. The defendant No.9-the sister of the plaintiff, has raised a contention that suit without including the properties located in Dhareshwar village, is not maintainable. It appears that defendant No.9 is not a signatory to the partition deed dated 15.09.1994. That being the position, the plaintiff to cure the technicality has filed an application to amend the plaint as an abundant caution, by maintaining the stand that on 15.09.1994, properties in Dhareshwar are partitioned. 8. In case, defendant No.9 succeeds in establishing the fact that she is not a party to the partition of 1994 and she was also a necessary party to the partition of 1994, then without including the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15690 WP No. 105742 of 2025 properties located in Dhareshwar village, Kumta Taluk, the suit would be defective. 9. If the plaintiff and contesting defendants No.1 and 2 are able to establish that defendant No.9 was not a necessary party to the partition of 1994, then the suit for partition in respect of properties located in Dhareshwar village, is not maintainable. 10. Anyway that question is required to be answered by considering the contention raised by defendant No.9. 11. Hence, the Court is of the view that amendment is necessary. If the amendment is not allowed at this stage and after the trial, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the contention raised by defendant No.9 is tenable, then the Court has to direct the plaintiff to include these properties. To avoid that situation, the Court is of the view that amendment is justified. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15690 WP No. 105742 of 2025 12. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is dismissed. ii. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether defendant No.9 was a necessary party or not to the partition of 1994. That question has to be decided based on the evidence to be placed before the Trial Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 0