- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9592 WP No. 409 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 409 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. KAMALAMMA W/O K.G HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NANDITHAVARE VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 101 2. HARISH K.G S/O K.G HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/ AT NANDITHAVARE VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) AND: K G SHIVANAGOWDA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577101 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 17.09.2025 (ANNX-D) ON I.A.NO.3 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA IN OS NO. 29/2025. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9592 WP No. 409 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the petitioners-defendants in O.S.No.29/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the Trial Court allowed the application, I.A.No.3 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of plaint. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners-defendants for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the petitioners- defendants. During pendency of the suit and before commencement of trial, respondent–plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint, which was opposed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9592 WP No. 409 of 2026 by the petitioners-defendants and allowed by the Trial Court by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will clearly indicate that the proposed amendment seeks to merely elaborate and amplify the existing pleadings and the same would not in any way change or alter the nature and character of the suit or its cause of action. Further, the proposed amendment is relevant and necessary to adjudicate upon the issues in controversy between the parties and as such, the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application. It is needless to state that the petitioners would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners-defendants. 5. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing the amendment prior to commencement of trial is in consonance and conformity with the principles laid down in the Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors – AIR 2022 SC 4256, Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. 2024 INSC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9592 WP No. 409 of 2026 726 and the recent judgment of this Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order does not result in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423 case. 7. The petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners- defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 4 Sl No.: 7