- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9985 WP No. 292 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 292 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT BHAGYA W/O RAMESH AGED 43 YEARS R/A AMRUTHUR VILLAGE SAMPIGE ROAD, AMRUTHUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA 572 130 …PETITIONER (BY MISS.MONISHA N.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DILIPKUMARGOWDA R., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT H K VENKATLAKSHMI W/O LATE A T VENKATESHAIAH AGED 56 YEARS R/A AMRUTHUR VILLAGE KUNIGAL TALUK ALSO AT NO.2112/A, NEAR AYYAPPA SCHOOL, 5TH CROSS, PRASHANTH NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 057 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO1. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRITS OR ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28-02- 2025 PASSED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC IN O.S. NO.454/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE K AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9985 WP No. 292 of 2026 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 plaintiff in O.S.No.454/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (for short “the Trial Court”) passed on the application filed under Section VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed by the Trial Court by holding as under: “ORDERS ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC On perusal of plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. 2. The applicants/plaintiff filed IA U/O 6 Rule 17 of CPC to incorporate the para No.4(a) in the plaint and also insert another prayer for the declaration. Further, the applicant contended that, the proposed amendment is necessary to adjudicate the matter in question, if the application is allowed, no harm would be caused to plaintiff. Hence, prayed to allow this application.KATK510023392018 3. On the other hand, the defendant has filed objection by denying the averments of application. The defendant has contended that, the proposed amendment is changed the nature of case. The nature of suit itself is diverted and changed. The intention behind raising the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9985 WP No. 292 of 2026 proposed amendment by the plaintiff is not only protracts the proceedings. But also defeat the contention already taken by defendant. In view of this circumstance the proposed application for amendment of plaint could not stand with merit and hence, is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 4. Heard arguments. 5. On basis of the application and documents on record, the following points that arise for the determination of this court. 1. Whether the application deserves to be allowed? 2. What order? 6. My findings on the above points are as under: Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1 : This court has perused the documents produced by plaintiff and on perusal of the amendment sought by applicants it clears that, it will change the nature of suit. Because, initially the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of permanent injunction. Now she sought for relief of declaration by amending the prayer column. Further, on perusal of the application filed by plaintiff it appears that, it will introduced a new thing and if the application is allowed, injustice will be caused to other side. 8. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that to decide the matter fully and finally the prayer sought under IA U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC is not necessary. In the absence of proposed amendment suit can be decided effectually. If the application - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9985 WP No. 292 of 2026 is allowed, it will protract the proceedings. Hence, to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, this court decline to allow the IA U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC in the interest of justice and equity. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. 9. Point No.2: For the above discussed reasons, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER IA filed U/O 6 R 17 of CPC is hereby dismissed on cost of Rs.500/-.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423 and K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9985 WP No. 292 of 2026 4. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to conduct local inspection. If such an application is filed, the Trial court shall provide an opportunity to the respondent to file objections and dispose of the application within a period of three months from the date on which such an application is filed. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 4 Sl No.: 7