- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30310 W.P. No.20894/2021 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.20894/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. PARVATHAMMA S/O KEMPAVADEYAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. SHARADAMMA D/O KEMPAVADEYAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 3. SUNANDAMMA D/O KEMPAVADEYAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 4. GOWAMMA D/O KEMPAVADEYAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT KETHOHALLI, KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562128. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADV.,) AND: 1. KEMPAVADEYAR S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERAVADEYAR AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30310 W.P. No.20894/2021 SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LR’S OF PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3. AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.11.2024. 2. JAYAMMA W/O KEMPAVADEYAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 3. MAHADEVAIAH S/O KEMPAVADEYAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT KETHOHALLI KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. X.M. JOSEPH, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 V/O/DTD:12.11.2021, R2 AND P1 TO P4 ARE LR’S OF DECEASED R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD. 05.10.2021 MADE ON I.A. NO.VI/2021 PRODUCED AT ANNX-G IN O.S.NO.294/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA AT RAMANAGARA & 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:30310 W.P. No.20894/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.10.2021 passed on IA.No.6 in OS.No.294/2014 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard the arguments on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed OS.No.294/2014 seeking relief of partition of all the suit schedule properties by allotting 4/6th share. In the said suit, the respondents/defendants filed their detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to amend the plaint by inserting additional fact in paragraph No.4, page 2 at line 7. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court, under the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30310 W.P. No.20894/2021 impugned order rejected the application mainly on the ground that the amendment is sought after the PW1 filed an affidavit of examination-in-chief and without any due diligence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sangavva Kaladagi and Others v. Shantawwa Sajjan and Another1 and contended that in a suit for partition, the cause of action remains continued till the decree is passed. It is further contended that the proposed amendment is only the plaintiffs’ intent to bring on record the fact that the properties acquired by the defendant were purchased out of the sale proceeds of sale of ancestral properties and these facts are necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 5. Considering the relief sought in the plaint and the proposed amendment, I am of the view that the 1 2020 (2) Kar. L.R 356 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30310 W.P. No.20894/2021 proposed amendment would neither change the nature of relief sought nor change the cause of action. In the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs intend to place the fact before the Court that the suit ‘A’ and ‘C’ schedule properties have been acquired by defendant No.1 in his name out of the sale proceeds from the sale of the ancestral property belonging to him, other defendants and plaintiffs, property bearing Sy.Nos.176/2 and 180/2 situated at Doddagangawadi Village. This Court, in the case of Sangavva Kaladagi and Others referred supra at paragraph No.5 held as under: “Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the suit is one for partition and separate possession. It is settled law that a suit for partition shall include all the properties which are available for partition. In the instant case, even though the application is filed at the stage of defendants’ evidence, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to minimize the litigation the Trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court. Moreover, Order II Rule 2 of CPC would have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30310 W.P. No.20894/2021 no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. Since in a suit for partition, at any point of time, the properties could be included. Even at the stage of final decree proceedings also, the properties could be included for the purpose of partition. Further, the impugned order in no way prejudice the case of the defendants. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition stands rejected.” 6. Keeping in mind the decision of this Court referred supra and having regard to the fact that the suit is one for partition and separate possession, it is evident that the application for amendment was filed prior to the commencement of the cross-examination of PW1. The records indicate that PW1 had filed the affidavit evidence, thereafter, application for amendment was came to be filed. In my view, no prejudice would be caused to the other side if the proposed amendment is allowed, by permitting the defendants to file an additional written statement. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.10.2021 passed on IA.No.6 in OS.No.294/2014 by the Additional Civil Judge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30310 W.P. No.20894/2021 and JMFC, Ramanagara is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.6 filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed. Plaintiffs shall file amended plaint within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents/defendants are at liberty to file an additional written statement, if any. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29