- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33253 W.P. No.18047/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.18047/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJANNA @ SIDDARAJU S/O MARADIYAPPA AGED 36 YEARS. 2. SMT. MUTHAMMA W/O LATE RANGARASAPPA AGED 88 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT AKKATHAMMANAHALLI DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. KAMAIAH S/O LATE RANGARASAPPA AGED 65 YEARS. 2. SRI. MARADIYAPPA S/O LATE RANGARASAPPA AGED 68 YEARS. 3. SMT. GANGAMMA D/O LATE RANGARASAPPA AGED 60 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33253 W.P. No.18047/2023 4. SRI. RANGAPPA S/O LATE RANGARASAPPA AGED 65 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT AKKATHAMMANAHALLI DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:09.10.2023, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 31.05.2023 PASSED ON APPLICATION I.A.NO.5 FILED U/O VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.153/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE-J & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.05.2023 passed on IA.No.5 in OS.No.153/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Raghavendra C., learned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33253 W.P. No.18047/2023 counsel appearing for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a suit OS.No.101/2012, which was later re-numbered as OS.No.153/2012, and is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura. The said suit was filed seeking relief of partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds, allotment of a separate possession of 1/5th share in favour of the plaintiff and a declaration that the gifted deed dated 20.09.2011 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff. In the said suit, defendant No.1, who is the mother of the plaintiff, filed a written statement mainly contending that the suit schedule property is her self-acquired property, purchased under a registered sale deed dated 14.08.1972 and during the lifetime of defendant No.1, the plaintiff, being a son of defendant No.1 cannot maintain the suit for partition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33253 W.P. No.18047/2023 4. It is to be noticed that plaintiff filed IA.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application for the amendment indicates that the plaintiff contended that defendant No.1 had no power or authority to execute the alleged gift deed in favour of defendant No.5, as she had only a life interest over the suit schedule property by virtue of the Panchayath Parikath dated 20.06.1985. The plaintiff has also sought deletion of the entire prayer No.1 for partition from the plaint and substituted the same with a prayer for declaration that defendant No.1 has got only a vested life interest in respect of the suit schedule property under the Panchayath Parikath dated 20.06.1985. It is further to be noticed that defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint mainly on the ground that no cause of action survives in view of the proposed amendment deleting the relief of partition and substituting it with a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33253 W.P. No.18047/2023 relief of declaration. The trial Court, vide order dated 04.03.2016 passed a common order rejecting IA.No.6 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and allowed IA.No.4 filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and rejected the plaint. 5. Aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint, the plaintiff preferred RA.No.10010/2016 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, vide order dated 06.01.2018, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff, set aside the order and decree dated 04.03.2016 passed in OS.No.153/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura and the suit was remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. It is also to be noticed at this stage that the Appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court dated 04.03.2016 insofar as allowing IA.No.4 filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the suit was restored and ordered to be tried on merits. However, the order of the trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33253 W.P. No.18047/2023 dated 04.03.2016 on IA.No.6 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected and the said order has attained finality. 6. It is noticed that after remand, the plaintiff once again filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. A copy of the application is produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition. A perusal of the proposed amendment after remand indicates that it was the same amendment which was earlier sought by the plaintiff through IA.No.6 which had been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 04.03.2016. Despite the earlier order having attained finality, the trial Court, under the impugned order dated 31.05.2023, allowed the application dated 23.03.2022 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. It is required to be noticed that the trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that the similar application filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 04.03.2016 and the said order has attained finality, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33253 W.P. No.18047/2023 In view of the same, in my considered view, allowing the application for amendment by the trial Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 is perverse and contrary to the earlier order dated 04.03.2016. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed in OS.No.153/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura is hereby set aside. Consequently, application of the plaintiff dated 23.03.2022 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is rejected. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22