- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 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. 41822 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RANGASWAMY S/O. H. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.149, CAVERY B BLOCK, K.S.R.P. POLICE QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560034. 2. SRI. R. HUCHAIAH S/O. R. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 1552, CH-76, 4TH CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM, MYSORE - 570 025. 3. SRI. R. SOMASHEKAR S/O. H. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.1552, CH-76, 4TH CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM, MYSORE - 570 025. 4. SRI. R. NARAYANA S/O. H. RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.1552, CH-76, 4TH CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 MYSORE - 570 025. PETITIONERS NOS.1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER SRI.H. VASU, S/O. P. HOBLAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM, MYSORE - 570 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUSHEELMMA W/O. LATE CHIKKJAVARAIAH @ KOSSAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.2135, CH-24, 1ST CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM, MYSORE - 570 025. (DEAD BY LR RESPONDENT NO.3 SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY) 2. SMT. CHIKKAPUTTAMMA D/O. LATE CHIKKJAVARAIAH @ KOSSAPPA, W/O. SRI. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (DEAD BY LR RESPONDENT NO.3 SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY) 3. SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O. CHIKKAPUTTAMMA S/O 2ND PLAINTIFF, R/AT NO.2135, CH-24, 1ST CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM, MYSORE - 570 025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 4. SMT. SAROJAMMA RANGAIAH W/O.LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.1566, 4TH CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM,CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 025. 5. SRI. M. MANCHANNA S/O. MANCHANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.3605, 2ND CROSS, ERNAGERE, MYSORE - 570 025. 6. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE R. SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.149, CAVERY B BLOCK, K.S.R.P. POLICE QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034. 7. SMT. SAVITHA D/O. LATE R. SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.149, CAVERY 'B' BLOCK, K.S.R.P. POLICE QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034. 8. SRI. PADMANABHA S/O. LATE R. SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.149, CAVERY B BLOCK, K.S.R.P. POLICE QUARTERS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.N. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2024, NOTICE TO R4 TO R8 DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025, R3 IS LR'S OF DECEASED R1 AND R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QAUASH THE ORDER DTD5.8.2019 ON IA-40 [ANNEXURE-J] PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM AT MYSURU IN O.S.NO.1714/2007 AND 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 05.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.1714/2007 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court’ for short). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 2. Sri. R. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed a suit for declaration and other reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed detailed written statement way back in the years 2008 and 2012 respectively. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have sought amendment of the plaint in the year 2011, which was allowed, and again was allowed in the year 2013. For the third time, an application for amendment is filed seeking to incorporate certain new facts in paragraph No.1 and other paragraphs of the plaint, which is at the stage of further evidence of DW1 and at a fag end of the proceedings. In the absence of any explanation for not seeking amendment at the initial stage, i.e. pre-trial stage, is not forthcoming. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri. H.N. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the Trial Court and submits that upon verification of the revenue records and other documents, the plaintiffs came to know with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 regard to the flow of title from their predecessors, which they intend to incorporate in the form of amendment. It is submitted that the proposed amendment is only an elaboration of the existing flow of title by furnishing better particulars and also seeking to correct the typographical errors in the plaint. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed O.S.No.1714/2007 seeking a relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners herein have been arrayed as defendant Nos.4 and 6 to 8. They have filed written statements. The records indicate that on earlier two occasions, the plaintiffs have sought for amendment of the plaint, which came to be allowed. After commencement of the trial, the present application under Order VI Rule 17 of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiffs seeking to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, allowed the said application on costs of Rs.5,000/-. It is required to be noticed that though the proposed amendment is filed after commencement of trial and there is delay on the part of the plaintiffs in filing the application. It is required to be further noticed that the plaintiffs have stated in the affidavit that after discovery of certain documents, they came to know how the title of the property has flown and those facts they intend to incorporate in the plaint. 6. In my considered view, the proposed amendment would neither change the scope of the suit nor alter the cause of action, or does it cause any prejudice to the other side. The proposed amendment is nothing but an elaboration of the flow of title, which can be noticed in the plaint. Insofar as the amendment to item Nos.3 and 4 in the proposed amendment is concerned, they are - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 typographical errors. Hence considering the said aspect, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the proposed amendment is the third amendment sought by the plaintiffs and that is has been filed after the commencement of trial. Though, the proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to other side, but for the lapse and also keeping in mind the fact that the Trial Court is required to conduct a de novo enquiry, the order impugned is required to be upheld by imposing an additional cost of Rs.10,000/-. 7. It is needless to observe that the petitioners are entitled to file an additional written statement, if any. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30255 WP No. 41822 of 2019 ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of. ii) The impugned order dated 05.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.1714/2007 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore is upheld. iii) The plaintiffs shall pay additional costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners herein. iv) The Trial Court shall consider early disposal of the suit. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19