- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.13496/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. GOVINDARAJU ALIAS GOVINDARAJALU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA HANUMANTHAPUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 562 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE BOODIGERE MUNIYAPPA. 2. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE BOODIGERE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 3. SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE BOODIGERE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 4. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE BOODIGERE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 5. SRI. SURESH REDDY S/O LATE BOODIGERE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. ALL R/AT. DINNEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101. 6. SRI. N. RAMESH MAJOR DEED WRITER VIDE LICENCE NO.20/05-06 NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 7. SRI. N. NARASAPPA MAJOR S/O VENKATESHAPPA PRASHANTHNAGAR CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 562 101. 8. MR. JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE BOODIGERE MUNIYAPPA DINNEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLPUR DISTRICT - 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:01.09.2021, NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 IS D/W R2 TO R5 ARE SD AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED ON 22.3.2021 ALLOWING THE IA IN O.S.NO.16/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKABALLAPURA VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 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 22.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.16/2007 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chickballapur (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Sri.S.R.Sreeprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 submits that the respondent has filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.10.2006 registered on 19.10.2006 and other reliefs. In the said suit, way back in the year 2008, the petitioner filed detailed written statement as to how the defendant has acquired the right by virtue of two sale deeds. Thereafter, an application for amendment of plaint was filed which was dismissed by the trial Court. Later another application for amendment of the plaint was filed and that was withdrawn. And now the third application for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 amendment is filed seeking to incorporate certain facts and additional prayer seeking cancellation of registered sale dated 18.10.2006. It is submitted that the trial Court without considering any of the aspects allowed the application. It is further submitted that in the written statement, the defendant has clearly stated as to how the defendant has acquired the right over the property and from the said date if the present application is considered, it is beyond the period of limitation and further the application is also clearly liable to be rejected on the ground of res judicata. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and Ors1. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.Raghavendra K., learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the proposed amendment is nothing but seeking to cancellation of another sale deed which was by 1 1964 AIR 993 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 inadvertently left out due to the mistake of the counsel. It is submitted that in the affidavit accompanying the application it is clearly stated that the plaintiffs are the LRs of Venkatamma and they are illiterates, hence the amendment would not cause any harm to the other side. It is further submitted that insofar as limitation is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another2, held that the delay in filing the application cannot be a ground to reject the application and the aspect of limitation is required to be gone into by the trial Court during the trial. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 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. 2 (2002) 7 SCC 559 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 5. The respondents-plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.16/2007 seeking prayer to cancel the sale deed dated 18.10.2006 and other reliefs. In the said suit, petitioner/defendant has filed detailed written statement seeking for dismissal of the suit and by contending that the defendant has acquired the right over the suit schedule property by virtue of two registered sale deeds both dated 18.10.2006 from Smt.Venkatamma - the original plaintiff for a valid consideration. 6. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff has filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint on 10.07.2018 in the said application plaintiff sought to add para No.9 and also sought additional prayer that alleged sale deed vide document No.3651/2006-07 dated 19.10.2006 is to be cancelled. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 05.02.2019. Admittedly, the said order has attained finality. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has filed another application seeking amendment of the plaint on 09.12.2020. The said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 application was again to amend the plaint on certain factual matrix. The petitioner has objected the said application. Later the said application was withdrawn by the plaintiff. 7. It is to be noticed that the plaintiffs have filed third application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to incorporate certain facts and additional prayer which was sought in the first application. The trial Court under the impugned order allowed the said application. It is to be noted that the present application filed seeking amendment of the plaint is at the fag end of the proceedings. When the defendant adduced the evidence and matter was posted for further evidence of the defendant. It is to be noticed that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant is that the application is barred by limitation as well as the application is hit by doctrine of res judicata. In my considered view the said issue need not be gone into in the present proceedings as the application seeking - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 amendment was rejected on earlier occasion and the said order was not challenged by the plaintiffs and similar third application is filed seeking the same prayer at the fag end of the proceedings, hence, only on these grounds the application is liable to be rejected. It is also required to be noticed that the petitioner-defendant has filed the written statement on 27.03.2008, wherein it is clearly indicated that the acquisition of the property by the defendant is by way of two sale deeds and knowing fully well about the two sale deeds, the plaintiffs have slept over the matter and he has not sought amendment at the earliest stage. Hence, I am of the view that impugned orders calls for interference. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision referred supra. In my considered view, the said decisions are distinguishable on the facts of the case. In the case on hand, on earlier occasion, the trial Court had rejected similar application where the similar prayer was sought, and second application was withdrawn - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31137 W.P. No.13496/2021 by the plaintiffs, and only in the third application, the application came to be allowed by the trial Court by assigning incorrect reasons and without taking note of earlier rejection and withdrawal of the applications. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 22.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.16/2007 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chickballapur, is hereby set aside. Consequently, application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28