- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21850 WP No. 8372 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8372 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI V MANJUNATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17, 6TH MAIN, MEENKASHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR G.S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. USHA M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. V. GANGADHAR S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17, 6TH MAIN, MEENKASHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRIHARI R DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2026 PASSED IN O.S.NO.657/2025 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21850 WP No. 8372 of 2026 XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF PREFERRED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON I.A.NO.03 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'Trial Court'), whereby allowing the application I.A.No.3 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court in Original Suit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21850 WP No. 8372 of 2026 3. Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. On appearance, defendant has filed written statement disputing the description of the property. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed this application I.A.No.3 for amendment. The same came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the suit is filed for partition and separate possession. Before framing of issues, the plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.3 under Order VI Rule 17 stating that, due to oversight by typographical error, it is mentioned as 'AC sheet roofed house' in the schedule instead of 'Ground and First floor of RCC roofed house'. By this amendment, the plaintiff is not changing any nature of the relief. 6. The only typographical error is that, they have stated 'AC sheet roofed house' is situated in the B - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21850 WP No. 8372 of 2026 schedule property, instead of the 'Ground and the First floors of the RCC roofed house' is situated in the B schedule property. The plaintiff wants to correct the same in the suit schedule, by which, it will not change the nature of the relief and this is a suit for partition and the issues has not yet been framed. The trial Court after considering all these aspects of the matter, is justified in allowing the application-I.A.No.3. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10