- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34037 W.P. No.5195/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.5195/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH R/O DHARMAVARA BEEDHI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572201. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P. ADV., FOR SRI. M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADV.,) AND: 1. LAVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH. 2. PANKAJA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAIAH. 3. PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH. 4. DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH. 5. SREENIVASA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34037 W.P. No.5195/2022 ALL ARE RESIDING AT DHARMAVARA BEEDI, C.N. HALLI TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572201. 6. P. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O PARAMASHURAMAIAH ENGAGGI BEELU C.N. HALLI TOWN TUMKUR DIST – 572201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY T.C. ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. K.S. RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, ADV., FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.12.2021 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI DISMISSING THE IA-6 IN O.S.NO.184/17 VIDE ANNX-F & 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:34037 W.P. No.5195/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order Dt.23.12.2021 passed by Learned ADDL. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli Dismissing the IA-6 in O.S.No.184/17 (Annexure-F); (b) Pass such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard the learned counsel of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.184/2017 for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, defendant No.6 filed a detailed written statement. The parties have led the evidence, matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint specifically with regard to the Municipal assessment number and extent in the schedule item No.2. The said application was opposed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34037 W.P. No.5195/2022 defendant No.6. The trial Court rejected the said application under the impugned order. 4. It is required to be noticed that the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff is with regard to the deletion of Municipal assessment number by inserting a different Municipal number and also with regard to the extent in the schedule Item No.2. The trial Court has recorded the reasons that the said assertion of typographical mistake in the plaint is not supported with any evidence and the PW1 has got marked the documents as Exs.P1, P4 and P5. The said documents are not in correspondence with the proposed amendment and the proposed amendment is based on the averments made in the written statement which is filed in the year 2017, and proceeded to reject the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order. 5. It is required to be noticed that in the written statement filed by the defendant in the year 2017 itself it - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34037 W.P. No.5195/2022 is made clear with regard to the Municipal assessment number and the extent; however, the plaintiff has not taken any steps for seeking amendment of the plaint and only when the matter is posted for arguments, at that stage, this application is filed without any due diligence. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32