- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30312 W.P. No.1449/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1449/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAMURTHY @ PAPANNA S/O LATE G.S. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 2. KUSUMA W/O LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 3. SUBRAMANI S/O LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT VADDINAKOPPA CHANNAL AREA, POST-VIDYANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARVIND C. DESAI, ADV., FOR SRI. C.M. DESAI, ADV.,) AND: 1. G.H. EKANATH SON OF LATE G.S. HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. G.H. JANARDHAN S/O OF LATE G.S. HONAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30312 W.P. No.1449/2021 BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF THIRUPALYA ROAD, GANDHI BAZAR SHIMOGA-577201. 3. G.H. THAMMAIAH S/O OF LATE G.S. HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O VADDINAKOPPA, CHANNAL AREA POST VIDYANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA -577 203. …RESPONDENTS (R1 G.H. EKANATH SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:29.07.25, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 30.01.2020 REJECTING IA NO.X PASSED O.S.NO.9/2017, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA VIDE ANNX-F & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2020 passed on IA.No.10 in OS.No.9/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.Arvind C Desai, learned counsel for Sri.C.M.Desai, learned counsel appearing for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30312 W.P. No.1449/2021 petitioners submits that petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, an application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint for incorporation of certain factual matrix, which came to be rejected by trial Court solely on the ground that, it was filed after commencement of the trial and that there is no due diligence. It is submitted that, defendant No.3 had initially been placed exparte in the suit. Subsequently, he filed an application seeking to set aside the exparte order, which came to be allowed on 17.11.2020 and thereafter, the trial Court has permitted him to file written statement, thereby restoring the proceedings to the stage of filing of written statements. If the proceedings are viewed from that stage and taking note of subsequent events, the proposed amendment is required to be allowed, as no prejudice would be caused to the other side and they have every right to file a written statement, if they want. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30312 W.P. No.1449/2021 3. Despite service of notice to the respondents, there is no representation for the respondents. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners filed OS.No.9/2017, which is pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga, seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, after commencement of the trial, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint by inserting certain factual matrix in paragraph Nos.7 and 11 as well as in schedule B/3. A perusal of the proposed amendment indicates that it is a narration of certain facts, which the plaintiffs could not plead at the time of filing of the suit. The trial Court, considering the submissions, rejected the said application mainly on the grounds of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30312 W.P. No.1449/2021 delay and that there is no due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs. It is required to be noticed that at the time when the amendment application was filed, the matter was posted for evidence. Subsequently, defendant No.3 filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC seeking to set aside exparte order, wherein the trial Court had placed him exparte. The trial Court, vide order dated 17.11.2020 allowed the said application by setting aside the exparte order and defendant No.3 was permitted to file his written statement. 6. Considering the said aspect and taking note of the fact that after the order dated 17.11.2020, the entire proceedings were put back to the stage of filing of the written statement. In that view of the matter, the observations made by the trial Court while rejecting the application would not come in the way of allowing the application. It is needless to observe that defendant No.3 is now permitted to file written statement in view of the order dated 17.11.2020. Consequently, by allowing the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30312 W.P. No.1449/2021 present application, all the defendants would be entitled to file an additional written statement, if any. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the considered view that the proposed amendment would neither change the relief sought in the plaint nor change the cause of action or the nature of the suit. In view of the same, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 30.01.2020 passed on IA.No.10 in OS.No.9/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.10 filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed. iii. Plaintiffs shall file amended plaint within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30312 W.P. No.1449/2021 iv. The defendants are at liberty to file an additional written statement, if any. Thereafter, the trial Court shall regulate its proceedings. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21