- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32717 W.P. No.19295/2022 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.19295/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MANU MARK IMAM S/O HAMZA IMAM @ H.J. IMAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC : AGRICULTURIST R/A DODDA BANGALE DAVANAGERE ROAD JAGALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577528. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASANAGOUDA S.S. ADV., FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. HASINA BEGUM W/O LATE J.B. AKHTAR HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O. OPP. KEB QUARTERS DAVANAGERE ROAD, JAGALUR TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577528. 2. SMT. HALIMA NISSAR AHMED W/O LATE NISSAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O 655, 14TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560010. 3. SMT. NASIRA GHORI W/O LATE AZZIMUDDIN GHORI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O APT 11051, PRESTIGE WELLINGTON PARK Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32717 W.P. No.19295/2022 GANGAMMA CIRCLE JALAHALLI BANGALORE 560013. 4. SRI. GHOUSE NAGHNOOR S/O LATE M.N. NAGHNOOR AGED AOUT 61 YEARS R/O 39 TOP FLOOR, ABSHOT LAYOUT T. CHODAIAH ROAD BANGALORE 560052. 5. SMT. NOOR FATHIMA W/O J K HUSSAIN MIYA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/A DAVANAGERE ROAD, JAGALUR DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577528. 6. SRI. D.C. NAYAZ S/O LATE D. CHAMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O JUBILEE WELL ROAD NEAR CHAMARAJAPETE DAVANAGERE 577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R. ADV., FOR R1 SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADV., FOR R2 & R5 R4 & R6 ARE SERVED V/O/DTD:21.11.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/09/2022 IN O.S. NO.131/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE - G PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ITINERARY COURT, JAGALUR BY ALLOWING I.A. NO. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE – E & 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:32717 W.P. No.19295/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.131/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge, Itinerary Court, Jagalur (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Sri.Basanagouda S.S., learned counsel for Sri.Virupakshaiah P.H., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri.M.R.Hiremathad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 5. 3. The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.131/2019 against the respondents for the relief of declaration that the petitioner-plaintiff is the owner of the ‘A’ schedule property, further declaration the plaintiff is in lawful possession of ‘B’ and ‘D’ schedule properties, and to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the ‘E’ schedule property from the defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32717 W.P. No.19295/2022 No.1, grant permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff not to interfere with the possession over the ‘B’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties by restraining the defendants or anybody claiming under them and also for a decree of mandatory injunction to remove the gate fixed on ‘E’ schedule property along with closing the gate space from the wall. In the said suit, the defendant filed the written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint and also for an additional prayer. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application. 4. The primary contention of the petitioner- plaintiff is that the respondent No.5 has filed the suit in O.S.No.48/2020 and in the said suit initially a false averment is made and based on such averment initially a temporary injunction was granted and on the strength of such an ex parte temporary injunction, she has filed a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32717 W.P. No.19295/2022 police complaint and tried to interfere with the possession and those subsequent events are required to be brought on record in the form of amendment. 5. It is to be noticed that the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff is seeking to add para No.4(a) after para 4, indicate with regard to the filing of the suit by respondent No.5 in O.S.No.48/2020 against the petitioner herein for permanent injunction and also filing of the complaint with the jurisdictional Police and based on such pleading, the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking an additional prayer of mandatory injunction against defendant No.5 to close the door opened in ‘C’ schedule property to the West face in C3 portion. The perusal of the affidavit accompanying the said application does not indicate any reason as to how the proposed amendments are necessary to decide the relief sought in the plaint. The trial Court considering the said aspect has rightly come to the conclusion that if defendant No.5 is making any false assertion and getting the relief, it is appropriate for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32717 W.P. No.19295/2022 plaintiff to file an application for clubbing of the suit in one Court and with the said observation, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant No.5 is in possession of ‘C’ schedule property as per the plaint averment, no relief is sought by the plaintiff with respect to the ‘C’ schedule property and proceeded to reject the application as the proposed amendment is nothing to do with the controversy between the parties. I do not find any error in the impugned order calling for interference in this petition. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38