- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29761 W.P. No.8455/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.8455/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.L. SHANKAR SHETTY S/O LATE B. LAKSHMANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS SAI VENKATESHWARA ESTATE ALDURPURA, KUDUVALLI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. PRADEEP REBELLO S/O STARY REBELLO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT KUDUVALLI VILLAGE CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. SRI. K.S. SUBHASCHANDRA S/O LATE K. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 3. SMT. K.S. PADMAVATHI W/O SRI. H.S. RAVI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 4. SMT. K.S. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29761 W.P. No.8455/2022 5. SRI. K.S. VENKATESH S/O SRI. K.S. SUBHASCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KUDUVALLI VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S. ADV., FOR R1 R3 K.S. PADMAVATHI SD R4 K.S. BHAGYALAKSHMI SD R5 K.S. VENKATESH SD AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:15.04.2026, R5 IS LR’S OF DECEASED R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM CHIKKAMAGALUR IN O.S.NO.117/2019 ON I.A.NO.VI DATED 27.01.2022 (MENTIONED AS ANNEXURE-G) BY THE ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE & 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:29761 W.P. No.8455/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.01.2022 in O.S.No.117/2019 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Chikkamagaluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.N.Shankar Narayan Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has filed the suit for specific performance against respondent Nos.2 to 5 initially, and later the petitioner was impleaded in the said suit. He submitted that the plaintiff has filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate certain new facts which has nothing to do with the prayer sought in the plaint and scope of the suit. It is submitted that the petitioner has purchased 6 guntas of the land from the defendant Nos.1 and 4 vide registered sale deed dated 06.12.2019 for the purpose of ingress and egress to approach the existing property and now a plea is brought by the plaintiff in the form of an amendment that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29761 W.P. No.8455/2022 there was “Oppanda Pathra” between the plaintiff and defendants dated 06.09.2019 with regard to the shifting of the road and if such amendment is allowed, it would affect the right of the petitioner. It is submitted that the entire extent owned by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 is 3 acre and in respect of 1 acre specific performance is sought. Hence, the present amendment has nothing to do with the agreement in question and suit appears to be a collusive one between the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the plaintiff. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Sachin B.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the proposed amendment is required to be allowed as a matter of course as the amendment is sought in the initial stage of the proceedings and trial has not commenced. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would not cause any kind of harm to the petitioner herein, the amendment is bringing certain facts on record to make the facts clear - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29761 W.P. No.8455/2022 as the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have agreed with the plaintiff with regard to the usage of road and signed the “Oppanda Pathra” on 06.09.2019 which was not incorporated in the plaint as nobody disputed the same and only when the petitioner, who was been impleaded as defendant No.5, the plaintiff thought that these facts are required to be brought on record to keep the facts and records straight. The trial Court, considering these aspects, has allowed the amendment, therefore, the same does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Shri.Mohammadrafi and another vs. Bandenawaz and others1. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 1 W.P.No.108512/2025 DD 16.12.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29761 W.P. No.8455/2022 5. The respondent No.1 herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.117/2019 against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 seeking relief of specific performance of the contract i.e. agreement of sale dated 01.09.2018. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed the written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is to be noticed that in the said suit the present petitioner herein has filed an application to be impleaded which came to be allowed and he was impleaded as defendant No.5 in the said suit. The plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint. The proposed amendments indicate that the plaintiff is intending to bring certain facts on record i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 4 have agreed to shift the road which presently exists in the Southern side of Sy.No.135/1P1 to the Northern side of the suit schedule property and the said agreement is called as a “Oppanda Pathra” which was executed between the parties on 06.09.2019. The said amendment was opposed by the petitioner herein. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29761 W.P. No.8455/2022 trial Court, under the impugned order, allowed the application. 6. It is to be noticed that the suit is for specific performance of the agreement of sale entered between the respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 5. In the said suit, the present petitioner, who impleaded himself as defendant No.5, has specifically pleaded that he has purchased 6 guntas of the land from defendant Nos.1 and 4 vide registered sale deed dated 06.12.2019 to the extent of 6 guntas for the purpose of road to reach his property. Taking note of the said assertion of the petitioner, the respondent No.1-plaintiff has moved an application seeking amendment to bring certain facts on record. It is to be noticed that the proposed narration of fact in the proposed amendment may not be necessary to the relief sought in the plaint, however, it is required to be noticed that the plaintiff has specifically shown the suit schedule property as 1 acre out of 3 acres 12 guntas and it is the petitioner-defendant No.5 who is now contending that he - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29761 W.P. No.8455/2022 has purchased 6 guntas of the land from defendant Nos.1 and 4. When things stood thus, bringing of facts with regard to the “Oppanda Pathra” would not cause any prejudice to the present petitioner. Ultimately, the proposed amendment, if allowed, it would neither change the nature of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the other side. The trial Court, considering such a contention, has rightly come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment would not cause any harm to the other side and allowed the amendment. It is always open for the present petitioner to file additional written statement, if any, to the proposed amendment. Hence, I do not find any good ground to set aside the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29