- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10265 WP No. 30574 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30574 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VENKATA SHIVA ASHA AKULA D/O BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O NO.220, 8TH D MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AISHWARYA HEGDE M.V., ADVOCATE AND SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI INDAR KUMAR S/O KOTHANDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.224, 8TH D MAIN, 1ST BLOCK , HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560043 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE COMMON ORDER DATED 02.08.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN O.S. NO. 688/2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10265 WP No. 30574 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S. No.688/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.08.2025, whereby the application IA No. 2 filed by the respondent - plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the trial Court by holding as under - " The I.A. No.II filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC is allowed. Accordingly, the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint by deleting the word "unauthorized" from paragraph Nos.5 and 22 of the plaint. The counsel for the plaintiff is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the office within 14 days in the office from the date of this order." 2. Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re- appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same is in conformity with well settled principles of law governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and a co-ordinate Bench of this - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10265 WP No. 30574 of 2025 Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025, and the impugned order cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors v Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423; K.P. Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443; Mohd. Ali v V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 3. In the result, the following - ORDER (i) The writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23