- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31733 WP No. 33721 of 2024 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. 33721 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. D..K KODANDARAM AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA, 2. MRS. M.K. KANTHAMANI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O D.K. KONDANDARAM, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GROUND FLOOR OF HOUSE NO.25, 1ST 'E' MAIN ROAD, GIRINAGAR 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 85. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. SHRUTHI K AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O D.K. NARAYAN D/O KRISHNEGOWDA RESIDING AT NO.25, RARE PORTION OF 1ST FLOOR, 1ST E MAIN ROAD, GIRINAGAR 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 85 Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31733 WP No. 33721 of 2024 AND ALSO RESIDING AT NO.33, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN ROAD, R.K.LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU - 70. 2. MR. KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS 3. MRS. SAVITHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS W/O KRISHNEGOWDA, 4. MRS. K. SWETHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O R VINAY KUMAR, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 33, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN ROAD, R.K. LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 70. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 16.11.2024 PASSED BY THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH NO. 32, BENGALURU CITY IN O.S.NO. 3430/2021 DISMISSING IA NO. IV FILED BY THE PETITIONERS SEEKING AMENDMENT UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE AS PER ANNX-A AND TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31733 WP No. 33721 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 16.11.2024, by which, the application filed by the petitioners seeking possession of the premises, in which, their daughter-in-law and grandchild are residing, comes to be rejected. 2. Heard Sri. Rajagopala Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the father-in-law of respondent No.1 - wife is the owner of the property and therefore, he is entitled to the possession of the property and he is now suffering unbearable nuisance from the hands of respondent No.1 - wife in the squabble between the husband and wife. Therefore, files an application before the concerned Court to get possession of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31733 WP No. 33721 of 2024 property, ostensibly, the husband is shooting from the shoulder of the father to get the wife and a child out of the premises. The concerned Court has on the following reasons rejected the application so filed: "8. Point No.(i):- This suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their henchmen, supporters, family members, agents, servants, officials, attorneys, contractors or any person/s claiming under them in any way disturbing the peaceful atmosphere of the schedule house of the plaintiffs by posing threat or trespass with a malafide intention to assault and abuse the plaintiffs with oblique motive to get the property of the plaintiffs for the 1st defendant and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants not to detach or not to dismantle the CCTV cameras and the wires installed in the schedule house of the plaintiffs to avoid the proof of assault intended to be caused by the defendants on the plaintiffs. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs reiterated the contents of affidavit in his arguments. The plaintiffs contended that on 18.02.2022, the defendants and one Thagadegowda and Madhu illegally trespassed, broken the lock and made 1 defendant to squat on the 1 floor of the suit schedule property. To bring the subsequent events, the proposed amendment is very much necessary. Per contra, the defendants have contended that, 1st defendant never vacated her matrimonial house and she has been residing in the suit schedule property. Further, the daughter of 1st defendant D.N.Sanvi Sakurthi (aged about 5 years) has lived with her mother at the suit schedule property. This application has been filed at belated stage, issues are framed and the matter has been posted for evidence and the main chief examination of PW-1 has already been taken. At this stage, if this application allows it changes the nature of the suit. 10. Admittedly, in this I.A. the plaintiffs have intended to insert the pleadings against the proposed defendants mentioned in I.A.No.III. This court already - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31733 WP No. 33721 of 2024 comes to the conclusion that proposed defendants are not necessary parties to this suit and rejected I.A.No.III. Hence, this Court finds that I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be rejected. Hence, this court answers, the point in the negative and proceed to pass the following :- 11. Point No.(ii): In view of my observations, as proceed to pass the following; ORDER I.A.No.IV filed by plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of CPC is hereby rejected. No order as to costs." 4. I do not find any perversity in the order for this Court to interfere and allow possession of the property, which would result in the wife and the child being moved out of the house. 5. In that light, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK