- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35247 WP No. 20796 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20796 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. N R MANJUNATH S/O. LATE. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT. NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N B DEVARAJU S/O. LATE. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT. NITTUR GUBBI TALUK - 572 223 TUMAKURU DISTRICT 2. SRI. N. B. GANGADHAR, S/O. LATE. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT. PLOT NO.302, 7TH MAIN, NO.17/18, BBMP OFFICE ROAD (ST. MARTHAS HOSPITAL) - 560 061 UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU. 3. SMT. N. B. AKKAMAHADEVI, W/O. LATE. MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35247 WP No. 20796 of 2026 R/AT. HOUSE NO.24, 9TH 'D' CROSS, 6TH MAIN, JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR, NEAR UNIVERSITY BENGALURU - 560 056. 4. SRI. N. B. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O. LATE. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223 5. SMT. N.R. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. T. M. SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT. MATHRUGANGA, 8TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, S.I.T. EXTENSION, TUMAKURU - 572 102 6. SMT. JAGADAMBA, W/O. NANDEESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT. SIRADADU TALAGUNDA POST, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 125 7. SRI. BHARATH, S/O. BHANARAMJI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT. MYSORE ROAD, NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223 8. SRI. N.T. NANJUNDASWAMY, S/O. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35247 WP No. 20796 of 2026 R/AT. NITTUR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223 9. SRI. N. VEERACHAR, S/O. LATE A.V. NANJACHAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT. HESARAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 223 10. SRI. S. M. BASAVALINGAMARI, S/O. LATE. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT. SAGARANAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 223 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 11. SRI. N.C. PARAMESH, S/O. CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT. NITTUR GUBBI TALUK - 572 223 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOA. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2026, PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1 IN R.A. NO.179/2020, ON THE FILE OF III - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35247 WP No. 20796 of 2026 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU, VIDE, ANNEXURE - J. 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 on IA No.4 passed in RA No.179/2020 dated 28.06.2026 by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, the appellant/defendant is before this Court. 2. The respondents herein have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property that came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019. In the pending RA, the present IA is filed seeking amendment of the written statement. In the application accompanying the said IA, it is stated that since the petitioner/defendant is not aware of the legal implications and proceedings, he was not able to differentiate himself in respect of the legal aspect. Now, he has learnt that the defence stated in the proposed amendment is very much required to decide - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35247 WP No. 20796 of 2026 the dispute between the parties fully and completely and also the proposed amendment is in respect of the prevailing law which rules and governs the parties as on today. By way of an amendment, he is requesting and seeking leniency to insert the things as a position exists as per law and facts in the case on hand, and if the amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. 3. When it comes to the amendment as sought, it is stated that he wants to add para No.5 as 5(a), stating that the marriage of one Siddagangamma, who is the mother of the plaintiff, and Siddhalingamma, who is the mother of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, took place earlier to the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence, it is a valid marriage. Defendant No 3 is an illegitimate child as per Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act and was born of a bigamous marriage, i.e. born in a void or voidable marriage. Hence, defendant No.3 is not entitled to any share. 4. Then, he wants to add para No.8 as 8(a) to say that the suit is barred by law of limitation. Then, para No.9 as 9(a), the plaintiff wants to insert the additional pleadings; he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35247 WP No. 20796 of 2026 purchased the property under the sale deed dated 05.02.1998 for valuable consideration and is enjoying the same exclusively by getting the separate entries. 5. The Trial Court, by the order impugned, had dismissed the application. The Trial Court had considered the scope of Order VI Rule 17 and is conscious of the fact that even at the appellate stage, that application can be allowed. The Court has observed that, in the affidavit, it is stated that, due to ignorance, these facts were not pleaded. The Court observed that it does not amount to due diligence. Further, he also wants to clarify the current legal position: amendment of the proceedings is not required; the question of law can be argued at any point of time, and accordingly dismiss the petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court ought to have appreciated the reasons that are stated in the affidavit, and the said amendment is very much necessary to determine the dispute between the parties; this aspect was not appreciated by the Court, and the Court had dismissed the same. It is submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside and an opportunity shall be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35247 WP No. 20796 of 2026 given to the petitioner to amend the written statement in the interest of justice. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. After the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, if any of the parties wants to amend the pleading, it is incumbent upon the parties to aver and prove that, in spite of due diligence, this particular amendment could not be made at the earliest point of time. Secondly, whenever an interlocutory application is filed along with that, an affidavit is filed to state and to bring to the notice of the court, what are the reasons for filing such an IA and, in this case, why that application could not be filed at the earliest point of time is not stated. This Court has perused the affidavit that is filed; except stating that, because of ignorance, nothing has been stated. The party is represented by an advocate. On these grounds, if the Court starts entertaining amendment of pleadings, there is no end to the litigation. In each case, whenever they want to amend the pleadings, they can plead ignorance of law, which is not excusable, and the Trial Court has rightly dealt with it and rightly dismissed the application, and this Court does not find - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35247 WP No. 20796 of 2026 any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. In that view of the matter, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8