- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19975 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: S.M. PRASHANTH, S/O LATE MAHABALESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SAMPAGAR, ARAGA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK – 577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARCHANA S. KALKUR, W/O DR. SHASHIBHUSHAN KALKUR, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O SHARADA, CAR STREET, BARKUR POST, VIA BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101. 2. ARUN M.C. S/O LATE M.C. MURTHY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O SHIVAGANGA SILVER LINE, FLAT NO.T-9, B-BLOCK, OPPOSITE TO KSIT COLLEGE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 RAGHAVANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 062. 3. D.S. VANAJAKSHI, W/O N.S. KRISHNAMURTHY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O NO.614, AMOOLYA, 2ND PHASE, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS, 5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4. D.S. SAROJA, W/O RAMESH BHAT, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O BHARADHWAJ, R/O NO.1-107, KAJEGURI, 1ST CROSS, IKALA POST, MANGALURU – 574 141. 5. M. LEELA, W/O LATE MAHABALESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O SAMPAGAR, ARAGA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK – 577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 6. S.M. PRATHIMA, W/O VIVEK KALKUR, D/O LATE MAHABALESHWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O SAMPAGAR, ARAGA POST, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 THIRTHAHALLI TALUK – 577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 7. SUDHA KUMARASWAMY, W/O D.S. KUMARASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O LAKSHMINARASIMHA KRUPA, URAGADUR, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. 8. D.K. PRATEETA, S/O D.S. KUMARASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O LAKSHMINARASIMHA KRUPA, URAGADUR, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. 9. D. K. PRANEETHA, S/O D.S. KUMARASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O LAKSHMINARASIMHA KRUPA, URAGADUR, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. 10. D.S. VASUDHA, W/O Y.C. ITHAL, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O NO.42/1, YAGNA NILAYA, 3RD BLOCK, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, THYAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 028. 11. DR. T. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O A.P. GOVINDA, MAJOR IN AGE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 ANURADHA NURSING HOME, SOPPAGUDDE, THIRTHAHALLI – 577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI ON IA NO.11 IN OS NO.35/2020 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE -E AND THEREBY ALLOW THE IA NO.11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN OS NO.35/2020 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE -C TO THE WP AND ETC. 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 petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the court of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 IA No.11 in OS No.35/2020 produced as per ANNEXURE-E and thereby allow the IA No.11 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in OS No.35/2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli produced as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. ii) Issue any appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court finds it appropriate in the admitted facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice; iii) Award the cost of this proceeding." 2. Heard Sri. P.N. Harish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. H.N. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.35/2020. A suit is instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, which according to the plaintiffs are the ones belonging to the joint family. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the claim of defendant No.2 or the defence of the plaintiffs as the case would be. Defendant No.2 files an application in I.A.No.11 in the aforesaid O.S.No.35/2020 seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application comes to be rejected by the concerned Court on the score that the petitioner has not placed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 anything on record or any document on record to demonstrate that it is a joint family property. It is therefore, the petitioner - defendant No.2 is before this Court calling in question the said order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the ground set out in the application to contend that, in a suit for partition, defendant No.2 and plaintiffs are on the same footing. Therefore, an application is maintainable at the hands of defendant No.2 to direct the plaintiffs to amend his plaint and would submit the documents were produced that it is a joint family property and the concerned Court has erred in not taking note of the said fact. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the plaintiff is the master of his plaint and he would want the suit schedule property to be partitioned in a particular manner, as described, those properties as being the joint family property and further, it would not be open for defendant No.2 to direct the plaintiffs to amend his plaint, is his submission. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Madurai Bench, High Court of Madras in the case of A.A. GANGA V. A.R. USHA1 to contend that an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to direct the plaintiff to amend his plaint can be filed by the defendant and the same can be allowed on the score that the defendant and plaintiff in a partition suit are on the same footing, each of them are getting some share of the property. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The possession of the parties before the concerned Court also is a matter of record. The application is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of 'not the written statement but the plaint schedule property'. The application comes to be rejected on 1 2010 (4) CTC 331 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 the ground that there are no documents produced by defendant No.2 to demonstrate that it is the suit schedule property. While the documents are available or not is not the issue. The issue is whether defendant No.2 can direct the plaintiffs to amend his plaint in an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Order 6 Rule 17 reads as follows: "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 hat 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." 9. The provision of law is clearly indicative of the fact that a party who files an application can seek amendment of his side either written statement or the plaint, if it is filed by the plaintiff, the written statement, if it is filed by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant cannot direct the plaintiff to amend his plaint. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26593 WP No. 19975 of 2025 10. As observed hereinabove, the plaintiff is the master of his plaint and has depicted certain properties in the suit schedule. The defendant at the fag end of the proceedings cannot file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaintiff's plaint. It was always open for him to seek an amendment of the written statement, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner would take him nowhere. 11. In that light, finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84