- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32800 W.P. No.22820/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22820/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: T. NANDISH S/O THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O. KARADAHALLI VILLAGE DEVALAPURA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432. …PETITIONER (BY MR. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADV.,) AND: 1. GAYATHRI W/O LATE RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 2. M.R. ROHINI D/O LATE M.R. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 3. M.R. HARINI D/O LATE M.R. RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. ALL ARE R/OF. T.B. EXTENSION NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DIST-571432. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. GAMINI RAJAGOPAL, ADV., FOR MR. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32800 W.P. No.22820/2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NAGAMANGALA IN OS NO.155/2011 ORDERS ON IA NO.XVIII DTD 19.10.2022, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS VIDE ANNX-E TO THE W.P. ALLOW THE IA NO.XVIII FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC, VIDE ANNX-C & 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 19.10.2022 passed in O.S.No.155/2011 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Syed Akbar Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Gemini Rajagopal, learned counsel for Sri.Bhargava D.Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of injunction. In the said suit, the respondents filed a detailed written - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32800 W.P. No.22820/2022 statement, the matter was posted for evidence and evidence was commenced. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking to add certain facts to paragraph 3 of the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The Trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the said application. It is to be noticed that in the proposed amendment, the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking to add that the boundaries and measurement of the title deed of the defendant No.1 does not tally with the alleged boundaries of her vendor's title deed and that the boundaries of her vendor's title deed is distinct from her title deed. 4. The Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that non-tallying of the title deed of the defendant No.1 with the title deed of her vendor with regard to the boundaries, is not the subject matter of the suit and it is the plaintiff who is required to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and is in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32800 W.P. No.22820/2022 possession of the same. In order to prove the same, the inconsistency in the title deeds of the defendant No.1 and her vendor has no relevance to the dispute between the parties. The Trial Court has also recorded a clear reason that the weakness of the case of the defendants cannot be an advantage to the plaintiff and proceeded to reject the said application. It is also required to be noticed that the Trial Court has also observed that at paragraph 16 of the written statement filed in a previous proceeding in O.S.No.185/2010, a specific contention is taken and despite having knowledge with regard to the said discrepancy, the plaintiff has not chosen to insert the said facts in the plaint. I am of the considered view that the Trial Court, considering all these aspects and taking note of the fact that the amendment is filed after the commencement of the trial, proceeded to reject the said application. I do not find any error or perversity in the order of the Trial Court calling for interference in this petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32800 W.P. No.22820/2022 5. Insofar as the alleged discrepancy which the plaintiff intends to point out in the title deeds of the defendant No.1 and her vendor is concerned, it is always open for the plaintiff to point out the same at the time of arguments in the suit. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV