- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16868 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT N.KAVITHA W/O LATE MANJAPPA @ BORE MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE R/O CYCLE SHOP ESWARAPPA HOUSE, BURUJANAHATTY MAIN ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R. NINGAPPA DEAD BY LRS SMT. SHOWBAHGYAMMA W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE R/O OPP. VINAYAKA SCHOOL BURUJANAHATTY CHITRADURGA TOWN 2. SMT. DEVIKA D/O LATE NINGAPPA W/O ANAND K.C., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O OPP VINAYAKA SCHOOL Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026 BURUJANAHATTY, CHITRADURGA TOWN 3. SRI. R.N.MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O OPP. VINAYAKA SCHOOL BURUJANAHATTY, CHITRADURGA TOWN 4. SMT. VINODA D/O LATE NINGAPPA W/O GIRISH S.N., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE R/O MAMATHA NAGAR, BOMMANA KATTE SHIMOGA CITY …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A i.e., OS NO. 558/2014 DATED 24.04.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITRADURGA AND CONSEQUENTLY ACCEPT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT COUNTER CLAIM OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 (A) AND (b) DATED 28.02.2026. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.19 in O.S.No.558/2014 dated 24.04.2026 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga, the petitioner/defendant No.1(a) is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondents herein who are plaintiffs in the suit filed a suit for permanent injunction and later sought for the plea of mandatory injunction. In the year 2018, the first defendant died and his LRs were impleaded in the year 2018. When it came to the knowledge of the defendants that there is a discrepancy with regard to the suit schedule property shown in the plaint when it compared to the documents and these important aspects were not pleaded, they have filed a counter claim that the defendants' property is a different property and they require injunction in their favour. The Court by order impugned had dismissed the I.A.No.19 without even considering the fact that the husband of defendant No.1 died and the wife is in a complete shock and as she was not properly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026 guided, she could not file the application in time. It is submitted that in the interest of justice, the application may be allowed. 3. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The order passed by the trial Court discloses that after bringing the LRs of deceased defendant No.1, the defendants were provided an opportunity for filing additional written statement. On 06.02.2020, the counsel for the defendant No.1(a) had submitted that they have no additional written statement to be filed on behalf of defendant No.1(a). But now they have come up with the present application contending that there are additional averments to be pleaded by them which are essential for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The application is filed at the stage of defendant's evidence and no specific grounds are stated in the application for seeking permission to file additional written statement at this stage. However, prior to filing of IA No.19, defendant Nos.1(a) and (b) have cross examined the witnesses on behalf of plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court has felt that at this stage the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026 amendment and also the counter claim cannot be allowed and dismissed the petition. 4. This Court having perused order of the trial court and is of the view that the court has rightly considered the fact that after the death of the deceased defendant, enough opportunity is given to the defendants. Now after cross examination of the plaintiff, the present application is filed seeking amendment of pleadings. No party can be permitted to cover up their latches in the evidence and at the belated stage, if this application is allowed it would cause lot of prejudice to the plaintiff. Further, no explanation is forthcoming in the entire affidavit for why they have not filed this application at the earliest point of time. The counsel’s submission that she is an illiterate lady and is under deep shock was not considered by Court. The husband died in the year 2018 and even in 2020 when an opportunity is given, it is stated that they do not want to amend the written statement. On these grounds, this Court cannot entertain the belated applications, which will have an impact on speedy disposal of the cases and cause prejudice to the other side. Accordingly, this court is passing the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15