- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26362 W.P. No.3276/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3276/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 184/1, KARUR VISHYA BANK ROAD TUBURAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINATH P, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. MUNIREDDY S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 2. SRI. CHENNARAYAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK. 3. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O Y. KRISHNA REDDY MAJOR R/AT THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26362 W.P. No.3276/2020 VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK. 4. SRI. S.R. RAJASHEKAR REDDY S/O RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. (RESPONDENT NO.3 & 4 PLACED EX-PARTE) 5. SMT. KUMUDHA KUMAR BABU W/O MR. B.P. KUMAR BABU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.3783, 13TH B MAIN H.A.L, 2ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. SUNDARA RAMAN, ADV., FOR R5 (VK FILED A/W GPA) SRI. G. MANJUNATHA, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:13/2/20 NOTICE TO R3 & R4 IS D/W R1 MUNIREDDY - SD) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 IN O.S.NO.25357 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-73) ON INTERIM APPLICATION (I.A.NO.2) U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC AS FOUND AT ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION (I.A.NO.2) UNDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF NO.3 U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.25357 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-73) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26362 W.P. No.3276/2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2019 passed on IA.No.2/2019 in OS.No.25357/2013 by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-73), (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner is plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No.25357/2013 pending on the file of City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The said suit was initially filed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein was initially arrayed as defendant No.5 in the suit and later, transposed as plaintiff No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint which came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the cause of action would change. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26362 W.P. No.3276/2020 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proposed amendment was sought at the pre-trial stage, even when summons had not been served on some of the defendants and the proposed amendment is nothing but narration of flow of rights as well as with regard to the revenue proceedings. It is to be noticed that the petitioner, who was originally a defendant in the suit, had not filed any written statement. After being transposed as Plaintiff No. 3, she sought amendment of the plaint. A perusal of the proposed amendment indicates that the petitioner intends to explain that the suit schedule property had fallen to the share of Sri.Munivenkata Reddy B., and his brothers and that thereafter, the husband of the petitioner and her brother approached the revenue authorities for mutation of khata in accordance with the partition effected between them. Pursuant thereto, the revenue records were mutated. The proposed amendment further indicates that after the death of husband of the petitioner, again some unauthorized revenue entries came - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26362 W.P. No.3276/2020 to be noticed, which were subsequently challenged by the petitioner before the competent authorities. Hence, the amendment seeks to place on record the proceedings that took place before the revenue authorities. The perusal of the proposed amendment indicates that, it neither alters the nature of the suit nor changes the cause of action. The suit is for relief of partition and separate possession and other consequential reliefs. Further, the proposed amendment has been sought at the earliest stage of the proceedings, prior to the commencement of trial and if the proposed amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the other side. 5. In my considered view, the same is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2019 passed on IA.No.2/2019 in O.S.No.25357/2013 is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.2/2019 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') stands allowed. The petitioner shall file the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26362 W.P. No.3276/2020 amended plaint within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the defendants, who have filed a written statement to file additional written statement, if any. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20