- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13915 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA & RAMAKKA W/O LATE S M NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.416, 4TH CROSS, GOWRIPET KOLAR - 563 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH K S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. T. S. CHOWDAPPA @ CHOWDAREDDY S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS R2 TO R5 AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.10.2022 2. SMT VENKATAMMA 1ST W/O SRI T S CHOWDAPPA @ CHOWDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 3. SMT LAKSHMI DEVAMMA 2ND W/O SRI T S CHOWDAPPA @ CHOWDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 4. SMT KAMALA D/O SRI T S CHOWDAPPA @ CHOWDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 5. SRI T C BRAMHANANDA REDDY S/O SRI T S CHOWDAPPA @ CHOWDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.31 THIMMASANDRA CHINTAMANI - 563 125 6. SMT VENKATAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMANNA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 6A. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O. LAE LAKSHMANNA AND LATE VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.30, 16TH 'B' MAIN J.C. NAGAR KURUBRAHALLI MAHALAKSHMI PURAM LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 086 6B. SRI. A.L. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. LATE LAKSHMANNA AND LATE VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 6C. SMT. LAKSMIDEVAMMA D/O. LATE LAKSHMANNA AND LATE VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6D. SMT. MANJULAMMA D/O. LATE LAKSHMANNA AND LATE VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 7. SRI B VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE BACHI REDDY R/AT WARD NO.31, NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE, THIMMASANDRA CHINTAMANI CITY KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 125 8. SMT ASHWATHAMMA W/O LATE T S SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 9. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 10. KUMARI ROOPA D/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 11. MASTER MANOJ S/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 12. BABY DEEPA D/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, 13. MASTER GANGADHAR S/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, SL.NO.12 AND 13 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 W/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR ALL ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.31, THIMMASANDRA CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125 14. SRI T S MANJUNATH S/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 15. SRI BABU REDDY S/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 16. SRI T S CHAKRAVARTHI S/O LATE T S VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.14 TO 16 ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.31, THIMMASANDRA CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125 17. SRI T S MANOHARA S/O LATE C S SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.31 THIMMASANDRA CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PINCODE - 563 125 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND NARADA K.N., ADVOCATE FOR R7 R2,R3,R4,R5,R8,R9,R10,R11,R12,R13,R14,R16 ARE SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2022, NOTICE TO R17 IS HELD SUFFICIENT - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 R1 DEAD AND LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS R2 TO R5 AND STEPS TO BRING THE LRS IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2022 R6(A), R6(B), R6(C) AND R6(D) - SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 20.02.2019 REJECTING I.A.NO.10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.357/2015 VIDE ANNX-H PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT CHINTAMANI 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 20.02.2019 passed on I.A.No.10 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.357/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.357/2015 against respondent Nos.1 to 7 seeking partition and separate possession of one-third share in the suit schedule properties and declaration that the sale deed dated 05.09.2014 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.7 is not binding on the plaintiff, and other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 7 filed written statements. The plaintiff filed an application to implead other coparceners. The said application came to be allowed, and defendant Nos.8 to 17 were impleaded in the proceedings. 4. It is to be noticed that, after impleadment of defendant Nos.8 to 17, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.10 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and to insert certain facts in paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 with regard to the impleaded defendants. The said application is accompanied by an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 affidavit of the plaintiff. The affidavit indicates that the proposed amendment is necessary to narrate the facts as to how defendant Nos.8 to 17 are the coparceners of the family. 5. A perusal of the amendment application also indicates the factual matrix with regard to the impleaded defendants. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, proceeded to reject the application only on the ground that there is no due diligence and that the application was filed after the commencement of the trial. 6. It is required to be noticed here that the issues were framed on 20.07.2018, and the trial was commenced. However, the evidence was not recorded by the Trial Court. At that stage, the present application is filed. 7. Be that as it may, the present application seeking amendment of the plaint would neither change the relief sought nor alter the cause of action, and no prejudice would be caused to the other side. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 consequential relief with regard to the share is again based on the impleadment of other defendants in the suit. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of SRI MOHAMMADRAFI AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI BANDENAWAZ AND ANOTHER in W.P.No.108512/2025, disposed of on 16.12.2025, at paragraph No.25 held as under: “25. The Court is of the considered view that in the following instances (illustratively and not exhaustively), applications seeking amendment of pleadings can be allowed without the “due diligence test,” even if such applications are filed “post- commencement of trial.” Applications to: (a) correct typographical errors in the dates of events, documents etc.; (b) correct property number, extent, location or discrepancies in the boundary or any other misdescription of the property; (c) insert events and developments that have taken place post-filing of the suit and which have a bearing on the final decision; (d) Incorporate a prayer owing to a subsequent event that has taken place during the pendency of the suit, keeping open the question of limitation; (e) Add a few additional facts or furnish better particulars to the facts already pleaded; (f) Add facts in support of the relief already claimed; (g) Seek relief in the alternative, which is in the nature of a lesser relief than the one already claimed. Example: In a suit for declaration of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 exclusive title and injunction, an application seeking the alternative relief of partition. (h) Seek additional relief or relief ancillary to the main relief when the relief sought by way of amendment is available based on the pleadings already made.” 9. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision and for the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.02.2019 passed on I.A.No.10 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in O.S.No.357/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, the application in I.A.No.10 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall file the amended plaint within a period of three weeks. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33073 WP No. 13915 of 2019 iv) It is open for the defendants to file an additional written statement, if any. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5