- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52546 WP No. 11298 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 11298 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: B. GOUTHAM CHAND S/O LATE BYRULAL AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT VINAYAKA COMPLEX COMPOSITE TO POLICE STATION B M ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJU S, ADV.) AND: 1. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT THITTAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 572 159. 2. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE KULLA VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 3. SRI JAYARAM S/O LATE KULLA VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 4. SRI KRISHNA S/O LATE KULLA VENKATAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 4a. KALAVATHI W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52546 WP No. 11298 of 2020 SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS ALREADY ON RECORD 4b. KUSUMA D/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 4c. SUSHMA D/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. RESP. 49(b) & 4(c) R/AT PATTLU VILLAGE, ABBUR POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 5. SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE KULLA VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 6. SRI GOPAL S/O LATE KULLA VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 7. SRI GANESH S/O LATE KULLA VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE R/AT PATTLU VILLAGE ABBUR POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 572 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3, R-6 & R-7; (VK FILED, NOC NOT OBTAINED); V/O DTD 19.03.2025 NOITCE TO R-5 IS H/S; R-4(c) SERVED, NOTICE TO R-4 (b) H/S V/O DTD 04.12.2025; V/O DTD 04.12.2025 R-4(b) LRS (c) ARE TO BE TREATED AS LRS OF DEAD R-4(a)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.47/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52546 WP No. 11298 of 2020 JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAPATNAQUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.1.7.2020 ON IA NO.7 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO.47/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAPATNA VIDE ANNEXURE-L TO THE W.P. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION BY PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO AMEND THE MEASUREMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Plaintiff is 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 01.07.2020 passed on IA No.VII in O.S.No.47 of 2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.47 of 2015 before the jurisdiction civil Court, Channapatna seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the contesting defendants have filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. I.A.No.VII was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52546 WP No. 11298 of 2020 of CPC with a prayer to amend the schedule of the plaint. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection. The trial Court, vide the order impugned has rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 4. In I.A.No.VII which is filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiff, the amendment sought is to change the extent of land which is mentioned as 13¼ guntas and in place mention as 15 guntas. In the affidavit which is filed in support of the application it is clearly stated that the applicant who is the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed and in the said sale deed the extent of the land is mentioned as 15 guntas. Even in the revenue records of the of the suit schedule property, the extent of the land is mentioned as 15 guntas but inadvertently in the schedule of the plaint, it is mentioned as 13¼ guntas instead of 15 guntas. It is under these circumstances, application Under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment in the schedule of the plaint by changing the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52546 WP No. 11298 of 2020 extent of the land from 13¼ guntas to 15 guntas. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit nor the cause of action for the suit. The said application was filed even before trial was commenced in the suit. Therefore, in my considered opinion the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. Under the circumstances, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.07.2020 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.47 of 2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna is set aside. Consequently, the prayer made in I.A.No.VII is granted. Since the suit is of the year 2015, endeavour shall be made by the trial Court to expedite trial and dispose of the suit at the earliest. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15