- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34039 W.P. No.23521/2021 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.23521/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.L. NAGENDRAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE SRI. LOKAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. BENAVALLI VILLAGE KEREHALLI HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577426. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH H.S. ADV.,) AND: THE ARASALU GRAMA PANCHAYATH ARASALU VILLAGE, KEREHALLI HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577426 REP BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADV.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.1.12.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA PASSED IN R.A.NO.09/2021, ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.II FILED BY THE PETITIONER & ETC. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34039 W.P. No.23521/2021 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 01.12.2021 passed on I.A.No.2 in R.A.No.9/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Sri.Prashanth H.S., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.44/2017 against the respondent for permanent injunction which came to be dismissed solely on the ground that there is no proper description of the suit schedule property and thereafter in appeal the petitioner- plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment for the plaint based on the survey conducted by the Surveyor on 14.08.2021 and as per the survey, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. However, the Appellate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34039 W.P. No.23521/2021 Court failed to appreciate the same and rejected the application. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court and submits that Appellate Court has rightly considered the application and rejected the same. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.44/2017 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 23.04.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has assailed the said judgment before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.9/2021. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by seeking to incorporate certain factual matrix on the basis that during the pendency of the appeal, a survey - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34039 W.P. No.23521/2021 is conducted and as per the survey report dated 14.08.2021, the petitioner-plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and not 1 acre, and the said factual aspect is important and essential to decide the lis between the parties. The Appellate Court under the impugned order rejected the said application by observing that the sketch relied on by the petitioner is a rough sketch prepared by Harish H.V., a Retired Surveyor of Ripponpete, and no credence can be given to such sketch and based on such survey, application cannot be allowed. I do not find any error in the impugned order of the Appellate Court calling for interference in the present petition. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30