HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33228 WP No. 16354 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 16354 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. S.T.BRAHMANANDA S/O LATE. SOMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RETD. HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, O.K.ROAD, KONDLAHALLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK-577 529, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY B.M.SIDDAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. S.B.PRATHIMA D/O S.T.BRAHMANANDA, W/O C.H.SHIVAKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.179/1, 4TH MAIN ROAD, PIPELINE ROAD, KAMALADAPURADAMMA EXTENSION, VISHWANANEEDAM POST, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHASHANK.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENUGOPALA.M.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-DIRECT QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ITINERARY SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MOLAKALMURU IN OS NO. 96/2021 ON IA NO. 4 DTD:19.04.2025 PRODUCED AS ANNX-D & ETC. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33228 WP No. 16354 of 2025 2 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present writ petition seeks to challenge an order dated 19.04.2025, passed in O.S.No.96/2021, by the Senior Civil Judge at Challakere (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, an application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order VI, Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. The learned Trial Court has found that the amendment is not required for just and effective adjudication, since these pleadings were specifically already set out in the written statement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the petitioners have filed this application during the course of cross-examination, seeking an HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33228 WP No. 16354 of 2025 3 amendment to the written statement. He further submits that he has clarified the reason for filing this application in his affidavit, where he states that at the time of filing of the written statement, the defendant was not able to narrate the facts to his learned counsel and only when the matter was posted before for cross-examination this has occurred. The learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants thus, submits that the learned Trial Court could not have dismissed his application. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand makes three contentions. Firstly, he submits that the paragraph sought to be included already form part of the written statement and thus is not requisite. Secondly, he submits that in terms of the proviso that since the application was filed in the middle of the trial, the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC requires to be made applicable. Lastly, he contends that in any event, the learned Trial Court has examined all these HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33228 WP No. 16354 of 2025 4 aspects and found that the amendment is not required for just and complete adjudication of the disputes. 5. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC sets out that amendment should not be allowed once the trial in the matter has begun and reads as under: "17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." [Emphasis supplied] 6. It is no longer res integra that Courts should normally be liberal while adjudicating amendments, however, where such an amendment has been sought for after the trial has commenced, the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC requires the applicant to show due diligence in asking for the amendment. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33228 WP No. 16354 of 2025 5 7. An examination of the records reflect that the written statement was filed by the petitioners/defendants on 24.11.2021. Paragraph 2 as appearing under the heading ‘the true facts of the case of the petitioner/defendant no.1, sets out that the plaintiff had at the time of her marriage “orally partitioned” from the family, taking away her share by way of cash in the sum of Rs.20 Lakhs, as well as 20 tolas of gold from defendant No.1 in the following manner: “2) That at the time of marriage the plaintiff, the plaintiff has orally partitioned from the family of the defendant No.1 and taken her share by way of cash for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (twenty lakhs) and 20 tholas of gold from the defendant No.1 and separated from the family of the defendant No.1. That 6-1-2008 on words the plaintiff is not living with the family of the defendant No.1. That the plaintiff has completely deserted the family of the defendant No.1 by taking 20 tholas of gold and Rs.20,00,000/- (twenty lakhs). That the plaintiff has filed this suit after the laps of 14 years from the date of the marriage of the plaintiff and also from the date of oral partition, as such the suit of the plaintiff is absolutely barred by law of limitation. That there is no real cause of action for the suit of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has created the concocted the cause of action only for the purpose of filing of this suit only.” [Emphasis Supplied] 8. In addition, the application that has been filed by the petitioners/defendants also shows that the amendments HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33228 WP No. 16354 of 2025 6 that have been sought to be inserted in the Written Statement are with respect to the same Rs.20 lakhs in cash and 20 tolas of gold. The amendment, sought for in the application, however, although unintelligible does reflect the figures above, and is reproduced below: “That in page No.5 of the written statement para No.2 after suit only insert the sentence. “That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable without inserting the cash for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cash and 20 tholas of gold in the suit schedule, the above said amount and gold have taken by the plaintiff by way her share at the time of her marriage.” In the family of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2.” [Emphasis Supplied] 9. A review of the application reflects that the petitioner/defendant have stated that: “Affidavit (3) That the plaintiff has filed the above said suit against me and remaining defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. That the remaining defendants have not appeared before this Hon’ble Court and filed written statement. I am the only contesting party in the above case, I have filed the written statement by denying the plaint allegations with true facts. That at the time of filing the written statement I could not able to narrate all the facts of my counsel. That the above said case has been posted for cross-examination of PW-1. In the mean while at the time of discussion with my advocate the application schedule para has not been stated in my written statement. The application HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33228 WP No. 16354 of 2025 7 schedule para is very much essential for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between me and plaintiff. Hence, this application.” [Emphasis Supplied] 10. Although the petitioners/defendants in the present case has relied on his Affidavit, he has been unable to show from the pleadings or make any submissions as to how due diligence was exercised and why this application was not filed prior to the commencement of trial as is requisite under the provision of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. 10.1 In addition, and as has been noticed by the learned Trial Court, the reference to the amount of Rs.20 lakhs in cash and 20 tholas of gold being paid to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage is already present in the written statement, which is on record and has been produced above. 11. The learned Trial Court has also held that this aspect forms part of Issue No.3 and the petitioners/defendants has the burden of proving the oral partition. A finding is HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33228 WP No. 16354 of 2025 8 also given that the application appears to have been filed to delay the proceedings. 12. Given the settled position of law with respect to the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, as well as the fact that there is already a mention of the amendment sought for in the written statement previously filed, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order that would require the interference of this Court. 13. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending application(s), stand closed. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16