- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 35897 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M.R. RAJU @ M. RAJAPPA S/O. MUNIGIDDAPPA @ CHIKKA APPOJI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. MUNIYAPPA S/O. MUNIGIDDAPPA @ CHIKKA APPOJI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 3. M.NARAYANAPPA S/O. MUNIGIDDAPPA @ CHIKKA APPOJI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 4. NAGARAJ S/O. MUNIGIDDAPPA @ CHIKKA APPOJI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 5. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. MUNIGIDDAPPA @ CHIKKA APPOJI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. ALL R/AT 205/1 DUBASIPALYA EXTENTION R/V COLLEGE POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 059. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 6. SRI ERAPPA S/O. LATE GIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKA APPOJI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.207 6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS R.P.C. LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040. 7. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.31/A MIG, 10TH CROSS 2ND STAGE KENGERI SETALITE TOWN BENGALURU – 560 060. 8. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.190/A 1ST MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, KENGERI SETALITE TOWN BENGALURU - 560 060. 9. SRI G.K. MANJUNATHA S/O. LATE H.G.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 10. SRI G.K. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. LATE H.G.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 11. SRI G.K. RAMACHANDRA S/O. LATE H.G.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 PETITIONER 9 TO 11 SY NO.43, VINAYAKA LAYOUT NAGADEVANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 060. 12. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O LATE G.SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS. 13. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. MUNIAYYA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 14. SRI NARASIMHA S/O LATE G.SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. PETITIONER 12 TO 14 R/A CHANJAMALLA VILLAGE VEMAGAL HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 101. 15. H.S.LINGARAJU S/O. LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.41, I MAIN K.H.RANGANATHA COLONY MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 026. 16. ARJUN GOWDA S/O. M.SONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.12, II FLOOR BEHIND THIRUMALA HOSPITAL KAMAKSHIPALYA MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 019. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 17. M.S. KIRAN KUMAR S/O. M.K. SIDDEGOWDAZ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NO.2191 4TH CROSS, B.M. ROAD KUVEMPUNAGARA CHANNAPATANA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 18. AKKAYAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 19. NARAYANASWAMI S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 20. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 21. VENKATESH S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 22. MARIYAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. PETITIONER 18 TO 22 ALL R/A NAGARAHALLI VILLAGE TATTAMANGALA POST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125. 23. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE CHIKKAMUNNIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 24. SRI SHIVANNA S/O. LATE CHIKKAMUNNIGAPPA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 25. SRI APPANNA W/O. LATE CHIKKAMUNNIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 26. DYAVAMMA W/O. LATE LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 27. SUDHAKAR S/O. LATE LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 28. PRABHAKARA S/O. LATE LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. PETITIONERS 26 TO 28 ALL R/A HIREPALYA KAIWARA HOBLI CHINATAMANI TALUK SANTHA KALLAHALLI POST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 563 125. 29. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A. HIREPALYA KAIWARA HOBLI CHINATAMANI TALUK SANTHA KALLAHALLI POST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125. 30. SRI RAMANJANAPPA S/O. LATE CHIKKAMUNNIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 31. SRI MANJUNATH, S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNNIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. PETITIONER 15 TO 21 ALL R/A. HIREPALYA KAIWARA HOBLI CHINATAMANI TALUK SANTHA KALLAHALLI POST CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI DHEERAJ B.M., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.15 3RD MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS BYRAVANAGAR EXTENTION R.V. COLLEGE POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 060. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11-11-2025 PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE(CCH-26) AGAINST I.A.NO.23 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.8735/2012 (ANNEXURE- A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for petitioners does not press this petition as against petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and 11 to 31, as he has not filed vakalath on behalf of them. Hence, this petition is filed in respect of petitioner Nos.9 and 10, who are defendant Nos.5 and 6 before the trial Court and they are inclined to continue this petition. 2. This petition is filed by petitioner Nos.9 and 10 aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.XXIII filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.8735/2012 by the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 3. In view of the learned counsel for petitioners not pressing this petition as against petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and 11 to 31, petitioner Nos.9 and 10 shall be treated as petitioner Nos.1 and 2. For the sake of brevity and easy - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 understanding, they shall be referred to as defendant Nos.5 and 6 as per their status before the trial Court. 4. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-plaintiff, as this Court is not inclined to show indulgence in this petition. 6. The suit came to be filed by the respondent- plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession. Some of them are placed ex parte and some of them are contesting the original suit proceedings. Now the matter is set down for arguments. 7. When such being the case, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as under: “For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit the Plaintiff/Applicant pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit an amendment by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 incorporating in plaint/prayer more particularly mentioned hereunder, in the interest of justice and equity. Amendment Sought for:- 1) To add in plaint para No.6. “6.a. In the course of evidence the PW-1 and defendants the plaintiff learnt that some portion of Item No.3 was alienated to third parties and due to efflux of time the questioning of alienation may not be possible and therefore the plaintiff is restricting her claim in respect of item No.3 to extent of 1 acre 71/2 guntas”. 2) To add in Schedule Item No.3 “Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.16, measuring 1 acre 71/2 guntas out of 4 acre 30 guntas, situated at Birjenahalli Village, Santhekallahalli Post, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bounded on East by : Shialaghatta Road West by : Sy No. 15 North by : Pillappa’s Land South by : Sy No. 16/2 And delete the “Agricultural land bearing Sy No.16, measuring 4 acre 30 guntas, situated at Birjenahalli Village, Santhekallahalli Post, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bounded on East by : Road leads to Shidlaghatta - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 and land belongs to Reddeyappa West by : Inamthy of Gopalswamy Temple and land belongs to Marakka North by : Land belongs to Pillappa South by : Lands belongs to Doddavenkatarayappa and Pillappa” 8. The said application was objected to by defendant No.5 and 6 by filing a detailed statement of objections. 9. Upon hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant Nos.5 and 6, the trial Court has allowed the said application for amendment by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/- to defendant Nos.5 and 6. The trial Court has dealt with the matter more specifically at para-10 of the impugned order to show how the plaintiff has made out a case to incorporate the amendment despite the fact that the application is filed at the post trial stage, more specifically at the stage when the matter was posted for arguments. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 10. It is no doubt true that an amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of trial unless proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is met with proper justification and due diligence by the plaintiff or the party seeking amendment. As it is a settled proposition of law that any amendment that is sought after commencement of trial shall not be allowed only if there is due diligence shown that the plaintiff could not have carried out or brought the amendment and it was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff and he was unaware of the said amendment that was sought. 11. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff has justified and made due diligence as to why the amendment was not sought and carried out prior to the commencement of trial or at the belated stage of arguments. 12. It is also seen that the nature of the amendment does not change the cause of action or cause any injustice - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 to the appeal. On the contrary, the plaintiff is now by way of the proposed amendment restricted her claim to an extent of 1 acre 7.1/2 guntas from 4 acres 30 guntas, thereby there is a reduction in the claim made by the plaintiff in the application and the amendment in the schedule to the plaint. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason made out by defendant Nos.5 and 6 to call for interference or indulgence in the order passed by the trial Court. 13. It is also seen that pursuant to the amendment having been carried out, there is no additional issue framed and neither the plaintiff adduced any further evidence nor the defendant stepped into the witness box. Therefore, there is no alteration or injustice caused with regard to the evidence already existed or change of case of the plaintiff or that of the defendant except the fact that the plaintiff is now reducing her claim from 4 acres 30 guntas to 1 acre 7.1/2 quntas. Under the circumstances, the trial Court is fully justified in appreciating the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 contentions on the application and consequently allowing the same by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/-. 14. It is relevant to extract Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as under: "17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 15. Under the circumstance, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court and the same deserves to be dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing itself. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54266 WP No. 35897 of 2025 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER This petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18