- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31750 WP No. 17137 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17137 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. H. K. PRAMOD SHETTY S/O LATE KRISHNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO. 242, SRI BALAJI COMPLEX, T.M. ROAD, HOSPETE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBALI, KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY M.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. H. K. CHANDRAKALA W/O PRABHAKAR. M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O LATE KRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO. 242, SRI BALAJI COMPLEX, T.M. ROAD, HOSPETE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBALI, KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 123. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31750 WP No. 17137 of 2025 3. SMT. H.K. SANDHYA W/O KISHORE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2ND FLOOR , NO. 515, 9TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 4. SRI. H.K. HARSHA SHETTY S/O LATE KRISHNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.3, 4TH CROSS, 3RD FLOOR, SRI RAMA NAGAR, ITTMADU MAIN ROAD, BHANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, IN OS NO. 139/2020 DATED 2/05/2025 PASSED ON IA IV, PRODUCED AT ANNX-G AND DISMISS IA NO. IV AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31750 WP No. 17137 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayers: "a) Quash the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kunigal, in O.S.No.139/2020 dated 2-5-2025 passed on I.A.IV, produced at Annexure - G and dismiss I.A.No.IV. b) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Shri Krishnamurthy M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the defendant, calls in question an order dated 02.05.2025, by which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) comes to be allowed. The suit is for partition. The reasons rendered by the concerned court for allowing the application is as follows: "7. POINT NO.1:- It is the contention of the plaintiff that, due to non availability of documents she did not included the proposed item No.5 property in the suit and the said property was purchased out of the joint family income and the same is registered in the name of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31750 WP No. 17137 of 2025 defendant No.4. On the other hand the defendant No.4 contended that, he is doing business of electronics and furniture from last 14 to 15 years as such out of his own earnings he purchased the item No.5 property through registered sale deed dated 26.08.2011 from its previous owner. The said property is not the joint family property. 8. Perusal of the record it appears that, the plaintiff by way of amendment wants to insert the proposed item No.5 property and also para 6a and b after the para No.6. The main contention of the defendant No.4 is that, he purchased the said property out of his own earnings as he is doing business of electronics and furniture from last 14 to 15 years. The plaintiff in support of the her contention has relied upon the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.4 and perusal of the same it appears that, as on the date of sale deed the age of the defendant No.4 was shown as 24 years and there is no mention in the sale deed as to how the consideration amount is paid by the defendant No.4. Further as admitted by the defendant No.4 in his objection at the time of purchase of the said property father of plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 4 was alive which itself goes to show that, the said property as alleged by the plaintiff might have purchased in the name of defendant No.4. Further whether it is the self acquired property of defendant No.4 or joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant is a matter of trial. If the property is included in the present suit no harm will be caused to the defendant No.4 if at all the plaintiff succeed in the suit in proving that suit item No.5 is the joint family property then she will be able to get the share or else it will remain as property of the defendant No.4. Therefore having regard to the nature of the suit and also properties it is necessary to allow the IA filed by the plaintiff. 9. The main object of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guideline laid down by various High courts. It is true that the amendment cannot be clawed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31750 WP No. 17137 of 2025 but it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. In order to put an end to litigation it is just and necessary to allow I.A. Hence, by imposing cost, if the present application is allowed no loss will be caused to the defendants or else it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative." In a suit for partition, it is necessary that all the joint family properties are put as suit schedule properties, so that it would not give rise to fragmented institution of suits. 4. In the light of the reason so rendered by the concerned Court, there is no warrant for this Court to interfere, as the order does not suffer from any perversity or error apparent. 5. In that light, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92/CT: BHK