- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28196 WP No. 16432 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16432 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MAHENDRAKUMAR S.N.M. S/O LATE S.N. MOHANRAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND ANAESTHESIOLOGIST AND BUSINESSMAN, RESIDING AT NO.141, MAHALAKSHMI NILAYA, II CROSS, ANJANI EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI CITY, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.S.BABU NARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: S.N.M.KANYA KUMARI W/O SHREEDHAR KUMAR.K.R., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR DECCAN HOSPITAL, ASWINI EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI CITY, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO. II IN O.S. NO. 410/2022 BY Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28196 WP No. 16432 of 2026 THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTAMANI, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.II in O.S.No.410/2022 dated 19.02.2026 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Chintamani, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court. 2. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.410/2022 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.II under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. That application came to be allowed by order impugned dated 19.02.2026. 3. While allowing the application, the trial Court had observed that on careful perusal of the plaint and written statement of the parties, the paragraphs sought to be added are helpful for the proper justification of present suit and it is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28196 WP No. 16432 of 2026 adding more detail to the case and not putting up any new case. The trial Court observed that as per Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, it is just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy, the Court may allow the application. In this case, the plaintiff is adding one paragraph in the plaint which is necessary. On reading the amendment sought by the plaintiff, it is just and necessary to allow the application and accordingly, allowed the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the learned Judge had committed a grave error of law and jurisdiction in allowing the application for amendment, completely ignoring the fact that a prior and more comprehensive suit for partition in O.S.No.90/2022, concerning the very same property and between the very same parties, is pending before the competent Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chintamani. The trial Court had failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had approached the trial Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material fact of the pendency of O.S.No.90/2022 and the interlocutory order of temporary injunction passed therein, which prima facie establishes - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28196 WP No. 16432 of 2026 petitioner’s possession. It is submitted that the proposed amendments fundamentally alter the nature and character of the suit. The suit which was initially filed for bare permanent injunction is now sought to be converted into a complex suit involving declarations of title, family arrangements, financial contributions and allegations of grabbing property, all of which are issues that must be exclusively and properly adjudicated in the pending partition suit. It is submitted that the reasoning given by the trial Court that the proposed amendments are ‘helpful for proper adjudication’ and ‘do not introduce a new case’ is perverse and contrary to the record. It is submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. Before considering the submission of the petitioner/defendant, it is appropriate to look at the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment. By way of this amendment, the defendant wants to introduce the facts about what has taken place in the family, how the defendant has failed to take care of the mother, how the mother of the plaintiff and defendant has taken shelter in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28196 WP No. 16432 of 2026 the son-in-law's house until her death and how the defendant has not earned any single paisa at any point of time and it is stated that the defendant had grabbed all the assets of the family and enjoyed more and there is no contribution of defendant to the joint family. The father of the plaintiff during his lifetime had purchased some properties and made registration in the name of defendant nominally. The defendant has no exclusive right or possession of the plaint schedule properties at any point of time. This is the amendment that is sought by the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking bare injunction and in paragraph No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has made a basis for these pleadings and these pleadings are nothing but expanding the earlier pleadings in paragraph No.5. This is a suit filed in the year 2022. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has approached the Court by suppressing several facts. That cannot be the reason to dismiss an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. If the plaintiff had come to the Court with suppression of facts, it would be considered by the trial Court while deciding the suit and that will not come in the way - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28196 WP No. 16432 of 2026 of the Court in considering an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. If the amendment is necessary and if it does not cause any prejudice to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot be prevented from amending the plaint. In this case, the trial Court had observed that the pleadings are very much necessary and it would not cause prejudice to the case of the defendant. The trial Court had rightly passed the order and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13