- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30028 W.P. No.12117/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12117/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: AKKEYAMMA W/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D.NO.CMC 56, 4TH CROSS DYAVASANDRA MAIN ROAD KOTHVETHOTA, K.R. PURAM BANGALORE-560036. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK WAGLE, ADV., FOR SRI. VIGNESHWARA U, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT. AVALAHALLI BIDDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST HOSKOTE TALUK-560049. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT. AVALAHALLI BIDDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST HOSKTE TALUK-560049 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30028 W.P. No.12117/2021 3. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. CHINNAPPA BUILDING IST CROSS KRISHNA THEATRE ROAD DYAVASANDRA MAIN ROAD (PRAKASH TYPING INSTITUTE) K R PURAM, BANGALORE-560036. 4. SMT. KOMALA W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A MASJID ROAD RAJIV NAGAR (MARIYAMMA TEMPLE) DYAVASANDRA MAIN ROAD K R PURAM, BANGALORE-560036. 5. H.V. VENKATESHAIAH S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE-560049. 6. V. GOVINDAPPA S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE-560049. 7. V. NARAYANAPPA S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE-560049. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30028 W.P. No.12117/2021 8. V. MANJUNATH S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE-560049. 9. PAWAN KUMAR DAGA S/O LATE SITARAM DAGA AGED ABOUT 66 EYARS R/A NO.44, 12TH B CROSS 19TH MAIN, J P NAGAR II PHASE BANGALORE-560078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. DEVARAJ, ADV., FOR R1, R2 & R4 SRI. T.K. RAJAGOPALA, ADV., FOR R3 R5 – H.V. VENKATESHAIAH SD R6 – V. GOVINDAPPA SD R7 – V. NARAYANAPPA SD R8 – V. MANJUNATH SD R9 – PAWAN KUMAR DAGA SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.02.2021 PASSED IN IA NO. NIL IN OS NO.2265/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30028 W.P. No.12117/2021 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.02.2021 passed in OS.No.2265/2006 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the arguments on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The respondent No.1 to 4 herein filed a suit in OS.No.2265/2006 seeking partition and separate possession of their ½ share in the suit schedule properties and also relief of injunction against defendant Nos.5 and 6 from alienating/disposing of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the petitioner, who is defendant No.5, filed a detailed written statement. Based on the pleading, the trial Court framed issues and evidence was recorded. After the conclusion of the trial, when the matter was posted for arguments, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30028 W.P. No.12117/2021 Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint which came to be allowed by the trial Court under the impugned order. 4. It is to be noticed that the impugned order indicates that the trial Court has allowed the application without assigning any cogent reason for allowing such belated application. The trial Court has just recorded a reason that, an amendment would help to decide the matter involved in the suit. In my considered view, the approach of the trial Court is perverse and the impugned order is without any reason whatsoever. It is a case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties. Based on such pleadings, which has been denied by the defendants, issues were framed and parties have led the evidence. However, when the matter was posted for arguments, the plaintiffs sought to alter their stand by contending that the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of the deceased Sri.Venkataramanappa. Neither the application - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30028 W.P. No.12117/2021 nor the affidavit indicates any reason as to why such a plea was not taken at the time of filing of the plaint. In view of the clear bar under proviso Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, in the absence of any due diligence, the filing of application when the matter is posted for arguments, could not have been allowed. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.02.2021 passed in OS.No.2265/2006 is hereby set aside. Consequently, application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23