- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30184 WP No. 18089 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18089 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: KRISHNARAJ S/O LATE MUNIKALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT BILIDEVALAYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. THIMMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIKALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS. 2. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O H.N. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 3. H.N. PRAKASH S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 20A, 7TH CROSS, MATHRU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30184 WP No. 18089 of 2026 BENGALURU NORTH - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01-06-2026 PASSED ON IA NO. VIII IN OS NO.42/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, PRODUCED AS ANNX-A. AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. VIII FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN OS NO. 42/2015. 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 dated 01.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.VIII in O.S.No.42/2015 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, dismissing the plaintiff application seeking amendment of the plaint, plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The suit is filed for partition and consequential relief in the form of declaration. The plaintiff's case is that during the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30184 WP No. 18089 of 2026 pendency of the suit, on 04.03.2020, defendant Nos.1 and 2 fraudulently, to cause loss to the plaintiff, executed a Relinquishment Deed in the name of defendant No.2 with respect to item No.2 of the property, over which the plaintiff was in exclusive possession and enjoyment. According to him, the said document is not binding on him, and, as such, the present application is filed seeking amendment of the plaint. 3. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order, whereby the trial Court observed that after six years from the date of execution of the Relinquishment Deed, the present application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint, and the plaintiff has not even stated in the affidavit as to why the said application was not filed at an earlier stage. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-petitioner was unaware of the same; as such, he could not file an application. It is submitted that during the pendency of these proceedings, the present relinquishment deed was executed; if this amendment is not allowed, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Further, he submits that if this application is allowed, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30184 WP No. 18089 of 2026 opportunity would be given to the defendants, and it would put a quietus to the litigation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition, as the affidavit is absolutely silent on why this application was filed after six years. It is submitted that the document was executed on 04.03.2020, and the relief sought by way of amendment cannot be brought before the Court, as the reliefs are barred by limitation. The Trial Court has rightly considered all these aspects of the matter and has rightly dismissed the application. It is submitted that there is an order by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case, but the plaintiff is not cooperating with the same and has been filing one application after another and then directing the Court to expeditiously dispose of the pending suit. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record, the Court finds that the suit is of the year 2015. The document, i.e., the relinquishment deed, is of the year 2020 and the I.A. is filed in the year 2006. No doubt, the Court has rightly observed that the Affidavit is silent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30184 WP No. 18089 of 2026 on why the plaintiff had not come up with this application at an earlier point of time. On that ground, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application. In this case, the suit of 2015 is pending. In the year 2021, one of the defendants has relinquished the share in favour of the other defendants. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of the property in respect of which the relinquishment deed is executed. Hence, the amendment is very much necessary. In the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court finds force that, by way of an amendment, the reliefs cannot be granted. 7. After the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, any application filed seeking amendment of the plaint, after the commencement of the trial, the Courts cannot entertain the application unless and until it is averred and proved that, despite due diligence, such an amendment cannot be brought on record at the earliest possible point of time. Further, the Courts cannot dismiss the amendment application on hypertechnical grounds. In the facts and circumstances of this case, where this amendment is very much necessary, as it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30184 WP No. 18089 of 2026 would put a quietus to the litigation and, at the same time, will not cause any prejudice to the defendants. Further, as far as the limitation aspect is concerned, the trial Court has to consider the same during the course of trial and this Court is not going into the said aspects. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. The order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal is set aside and consequentially, the I.A.No.VIII is allowed. ii. The defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement. iii. The issue with regard to the limitation of the relinquishment deed is kept open. iv. The petitioner/plaintiff without taking unnecessary adjournments shall proceed with the matter and the Court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the matter as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30184 WP No. 18089 of 2026 expeditiously as possible as per the earlier directions issued by this Court. v. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. vi. Pending I.As if any, in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24