- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28325 W.P. No.9027/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MOTAMMA (SINCE DEAD). 2. SMT. ANJINAMMA AGED 55 YEARS D/O LATE HANUMANTHRAYAPPA. 3. SHRI. RAMANJINAPPA DEAD BY HIS LR’S. (a) (b) SMT. MANJULAMMA AGED 50 YEARS W/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA. SHRI ARUN KUMAR AGED 28 YEARS S/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA. (c) SMT. AMRUTHA AGED 26 YEARS D/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA. 4. SHRI ANANDHA AGED 48 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMARITHRAYAPPA. PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT KAMBADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 102. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28325 W.P. No.9027/2021 5. SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED 65 YEARS W/O LATE DODDA ANJINAPPA R/AT CHATRAKODAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. 6. SMT. MANJULA AGED 35 YEARS W/O NARAYANAPPA D/O LATE DODDA ANJINAPPA R/AT MASTI VILLAGE MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 139. 7. SMT. RAMANJINAMMA AGED 33 YEARS W/O LATE DODDA ANJINAPPA R/AT CHATRAKODAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY T.R. ADV., FOR SRI. KIRAN B, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKA ANJINAPPA AGED 60 YEARS. 2. SMT. MUNI RAJU D/O LATE CHIKKA ANJINAPPA AGED 30 YEARS. 3. SHRI. RAMANJINAPPA D/O LATE CHIKKA ANJINAPPA AGED 27 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28325 W.P. No.9027/2021 RESP NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KAIWARA VILLAGE KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK. 4. SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O MURTHY D/O LATE CHIKKA ANJINAPPA AGED 40 YEARS R/AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O RAMAPPA D/O LATE CHIKKA ANJINAPPA AGED 33 YEARS R/AT BUJJANAHALLI VILLAGE MADIYANUR POST, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. 6. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKA HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED 43 YEARS R/AT KAIWARA VILLAGE KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK. 7. SRI. NARASAPPA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED 65 YEARS R/AT KAIWARA VILLAGE KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.C. THIMMARAYAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S. ADV., FOR R6 R7 SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:11.09.2025, P2 TO 4 ARE LR’S OF DECD. P1) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28325 W.P. No.9027/2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED IN OS NO.25/2015 ON IA NO.8 BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN IA NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITONERS IN OS NO.25/2015 ON IA NO.8 BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.03.2021 passed on IA.No.8 in OS.No.25/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate possession with regard to the two properties, one is land bearing Sy.No.170 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28325 W.P. No.9027/2021 and another house property Khata bearing No.397/989. The defendants have filed a written statement to the plaint. It is to be noticed that defendant No.6 in the said suit is the purchaser of 1 acre of property out of 2 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No.170. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the trial Court’) seeking amendment of the plaint to bring out certain facts. The gist of the amendment is that the husband of defendant No.1, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have sold 1 acre of land in Sy.No.170 in favour of defendant No.6 vide registered sale dated 12.01.2006 and out of the said fund, they have purchased item No.3 property on 12.01.2006. The trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground that there is no due diligence and the proposed amendment is in with the evidence produced by the parties. 4. It is further to be noticed that the trial Court has allowed to add item No.3 property in the suit which is purchased by the husband of defendant No.1, defendant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28325 W.P. No.9027/2021 Nos.1 to 5 with a registered sale deed dated 12.01.2006. However, the trial Court has rejected the amendment of the pleading with regard to the sale of property in favour of defendant No.6 by the husband of defendant No.1, defendant Nos.1 to 5 vide registered sale deed dated 12.01.2006. In my considered view, no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the proposed amendment is allowed in entirety. It is not in dispute that the sale and purchase are prior to the institution of suit; however, the petitioners are contending that the husband of defendant No.1, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have sold one acre of the land in a suit schedule property and out of the said fund they have purchased another property which is item No.3 on 12.01.2006. In my considered view, the suit being suit for partition, the factual matrix is required to be placed before the Court and considering the same and by providing an opportunity to the defendants to file an additional written statement, if any, to the amended plaint the ends of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28325 W.P. No.9027/2021 justice would be met. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.03.2021 passed on IA.No.8 in OS.No.25/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani is hereby set aside. iii. The Petitioners shall file amended plaint within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv. The Defendants are permitted to file an additional written statement, if any, to the amended plaint. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26