- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33767 WP No. 3829 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ASHA KANYALAL BAJAJ D/O LATE VIMALA LUNIDARAM RAJANI W/O KANYALAL P BAJAJ AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.12, BAJAJ HOUSE, 1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MAYA H MAKHIJA D/O LATE VIMALA LUNIDARAM RAJANI, W/O SRI HARICHAND PARMANAND MAKHIJA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO 3B, BHAGWAT NIWAS, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 026 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/06/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED ON I.A.NOS.6 AND 7 AND AS ALSO THE ORDER DATED 08/12/2022 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED ON I.A.NO.9 BY THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE- Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33767 WP No. 3829 of 2023 (CCH NO.8) BENGALURU, IN O.S.NO.6696/2009 AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER WRITS OR ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 orders dated 23.06.2018 passed on I.A.Nos.6 and 7, and the order dated 08.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.6696/2009 on the file of XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.8), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. Sri R. Vijaykumar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the respondent/defendant has filed a written statement. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.6 under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33767 WP No. 3829 of 2023 Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking to decree the suit based on the admissions made in the written statement. The defendant has filed I.A.No.7 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed objections to the said application. The Trial Court passed a common order on both applications without hearing the plaintiff as well as the defendant. It is submitted that immediately thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.9 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall the order dated 23.06.2018, which also came to be rejected by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the defendant seeks to introduce a Will and intends to state certain facts in the written statement, and therefore, an opportunity may be given to the petitioner/plaintiff to oppose the said application on merits. Without providing any opportunity, based on the averments made in the applications, the Trial Court proceeded to allow I.A.No.7, permitted to amend the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33767 WP No. 3829 of 2023 written statement, and rejected I.A.No.6. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition. 3. Per contra, Sri Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant supports the orders of the Trial Court and submits that the application for amendment of the written statement was filed at the initial stage of the proceedings, where even the issues were not framed. Hence, the said amendment is a formal amendment and no purpose would be served by remanding the matter. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.6696/2009 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the respondent/defendant filed a written - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33767 WP No. 3829 of 2023 statement and later filed I.A.No.7 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the written statement to incorporate certain facts, mainly with regard to the Will dated 19.12.1994. The petitioner/plaintiff, in the said suit, filed I.A.No.6 under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC seeking to decree the suit based on the admissions in the written statement. The records indicate that the plaintiff has filed objections to I.A.No.7 and the defendant has filed objections to I.A.No.6. The Trial Court, under the impugned order dated 23.06.2018, rejected I.A.No.6 filed by the plaintiff and allowed I.A.No.7 filed by the defendant and permitted to amend the written statement. It is required to be noticed that the plaintiff immediately filed I.A.No.9 on 03.07.2018 seeking to recall the order dated 23.06.2018, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 08.12.2022. The order sheet on record indicates that, while passing the order dated 23.06.2018, the Trial Court has not heard the plaintiff and the defendant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33767 WP No. 3829 of 2023 6. Be that as it may, the Trial Court is required to hear the parties and take a decision with regard to the applications on I.A.Nos.6 and 7; otherwise, it would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, in view of the preceding analysis, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 23.06.2018, passed on I.A.Nos.6 and 7 in O.S.No.6696/2009 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH – 8) Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii) The order dated 08.12.2022, passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.6696/2009 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH – 8) Bengaluru is also hereby set aside. iv) The Trial Court shall reconsider I.A.Nos.6 and 7 filed by the plaintiff and defendant, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33767 WP No. 3829 of 2023 respectively, on merits and in accordance with law after hearing both sides. v) The plaintiff as well as the defendant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter. On next date of hearing ie., 27.08.2026, the parties shall argue on the applications. vi) In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2023 would not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28