- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.16373/2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. RAJANNA S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 2. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 3. SRI. MURALI KUMAR .K S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 4. SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR .K S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 5. SRI. SUBRAMANI .K S/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 6. SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 7. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 8. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE R. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. GURAPPANAMATHA ROAD 17TH WARD, VIJAYAPURA TOWN Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024 DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 568135. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. M. CHANDREGOWDA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT. CHIKKABALLAPURA ROAD VIJAYAPURA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI. ASHWATHA S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. LALAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 5682132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.R. VISWANATH, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI C/C III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI DTD 27.04.2024 ON IA 12 IN OS NO.418/14 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2024 passed on IA.No.12 in O.S.No.418/2014 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli C/c II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. 2. Sri.Shivashankar K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition, separate possession and also for relief of declaration that the alleged unregistered, notarized General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 24.12.2007 executed by the deceased Sri.R.Krishnappa in favour of defendant No.1 and alleged registered sale deed dated 03.01.2009 are sham and not binding on the plaintiffs' share and have also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. It is further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024 submitted that the relief of declaration, alleging that the GPA and the sale deed were obtained fraudulently was not adequately supported with pleadings in the plaint, necessitating an application for amendment to elaborate the relevant facts. However, the trial Court, solely on the ground that the proposed amendment pertained to basic pleadings which could have been filed at an earlier stage, proceeded to dismiss the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.B.R.Viswanath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of trial Court and submits that the detailed objections were filed to the said application before the trial Court contending that there was no impediment preventing the plaintiffs from incorporating these facts at the time of filing of the suit, and that the belated filing of the amendment application amounts to an abuse of the process of law and on the ground of delay, the application is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the plaintiffs - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024 have already led the evidence and the documents are marked, hence, question of allowing the application after commencement of the trial does not arise. It is further submitted that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property, which has been tenanted to a third party who pays rent to them, and that the assertions now made in the amendment application are contrary to the established facts. It is further submitted that PW1 and PW3, in their cross-examination, have clearly admitted the defendants’ possession over the property. The present application is filed decade after seeking relief of declaration which is in effect barred by limitation and considering these aspects, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024 5. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and further relief to declare that the alleged, unregistered notarised General Power of Attorney dated 24.12.2007 executed by the deceased Sri.R.Krishnappa in favour of defendant No.1 and alleged registered sale deed dated 03.01.2009 is obtained by fraud and those documents are sham and do not bind the plaintiffs' share and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering or creating third party interest over the suit schedule property and further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and obstructing the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the defendants have filed a detailed written statement denying the plaintiffs assertions with regard to right over the suit schedule property. It is specifically pleaded that based on the power of attorney dated 24.12.2007 a valid registered sale deed was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024 defendant No.2 on 03.01.2009 and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. During the pendency of the suit, when the matter was posted for cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint. A perusal of the application indicates that the plaintiffs intended only to elaborate the facts to support their prayer in the plaint with regard to the execution of the sale deed based on the GPA. The proposed amendment neither withdraws any admission made in the evidence nor introduces any new plea; rather, it merely expands upon the existing averments in support of the reliefs already sought. The contention of the respondents/defendants that PW1 and PW3 have admitted the defendants’ possession over the suit schedule property and the proposed amendment would take away such admission has no merit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45417 W.P. No.16373/2024 7. The trial Court, while adjudicating the suit, is required to take note of the fact about the admissions in the cross-examination and the amendment sought now. Insofar as filing of application belatedly, I am of the considered view that the said application is required to be allowed on terms. The proposed amendment neither alters the nature of the suit nor introduces a relief barred by limitation. The present application for amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side but it would aid the trial Court to decide the suit comprehensively and on its merits. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed on IA.No.12 in O.S.418/2014 is hereby set aside. Consequently IA.No.12 is allowed subject to the petitioners paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to defendant No.2. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5