- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.13447/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: G.V. SARVAMANGALAMMA W/O S. SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT #30, IST B MAIN BEST COUNTY PHASE-2 VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560097 REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER S.S. PARIKSHIT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.,) AND: 1. G. VEERANNA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S. SHIVAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S. G.V. SHEKHAR S/O G. VEERANNA SINCE DEAD BY LR’S. GEETHA @ SIDDAGANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O LATE G.V. SHEKHAR. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 2. AVINASH V.S. W/O LATE G.V. SHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. R1 & R2 ARE R/O 920, IST FLOOR OPP NANJAPPA REDDY HOUSE NANJAPPA REDDY COLONY IST MAIN, K N EXTENSION YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560020. 3. VISHWANATH G.V. S/O LATE G. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. 30, SATHYA NIVAS 3RD CROSS, UTTANALLAPPA LAYOUT THINDLU, VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560097. 4. VASANTHA W/O N. LOKESHA D/O LATE G. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.171, 2ND CROSS PHASE I, SAI NAGARA CHIKKABETTAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560097. 5. UMESH G.V. S/O LATE G. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A 507/66, GROUND FLOOR K N EXTENSION, 6TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA REDDY G.V. ADV., FOR R1, R2, R3 & R5 SRI. KARTHIK N, ADV., FOR R4) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 04.07.2022 PASSED BY LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU, PASSED IN O.S.NO.4866/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.NO.21 FILED BY PETITIONER U/S 151 OF CPC SEEKING ENQUIRY AND CRIMINAL ACTION AGAINST R1 TO 3 AND 5 ANNEXURE-E AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.23 FILED BY THE R1 TO 3 AND 5 U/S 151 OF CPC SEEKING WITHDRAWAL OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD 01.04.2022 AND TO FILE FRESH WRITTEN STATEMENT ANNEXURE-H & ETC. 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 04.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.4866/2011 by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 59) (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. Sri.Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition. In the said suit, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 and 7 have filed a written statement. Later, they have filed an additional written statement. In the said additional written - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 statement, the other defendants have forged the signature of the defendant No.6-Smt.G.V.Vasantha who was placed ex parte. Hence, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) was filed to initiate the criminal action against the concerned persons after holding a due enquiry for forging the signature of the defendant No.6. However, the Trial Court, by considering the other application filed by the defendants wherein they had withdrawn the additional written statement filed and had sought leave to file corrected written statement, proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner. It is submitted that when the defendant No.6 was placed ex parte, the other defendants, in order to deceive, have forged the signature of the defendant No.6 and filed the additional written statement and the Trial Court, without even issuing notice to the defendant No.6 and without conducting any enquiry, proceeded to reject the application by recording the reasons that the plaintiff has failed to specifically state as - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 to who has forged the signature. Such a finding of the Trial Court is perverse and hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order with a direction to hold an enquiry by issuing notice to the defendant No.6. 3. Per contra, Sri.Krishna Reddy G.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and Sri.Karthik N., learned counsel for the respondent No.4 support the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits the Trial Court, taking note of all the aspects has rightly come to conclusion and rejected the application of the plaintiff in I.A.No.21 which does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the action of the other defendants was bona fide which has been taken note by the Trial Court while allowing the application of the other defendants to withdraw the additional written statement by permitting them to file corrected written statement. Hence, they seek to dismiss the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.4866/2011 for the relief of partition. In the said suit, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 and 7 filed an additional written statement on 01.04.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.21 under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking prayer to take appropriate criminal action against all the concerned persons after holding due enquiry for forging the signature of Smt.Vasantha. The said application is accompanied by an affidavit. It is to be noticed that the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 have filed a memo before the Trial Court indicating that the additional written statement filed on 01.04.2022 is restricted only on behalf of defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 and not others and the said memo to be treated as objections to the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 application filed by the plaintiff. The records further indicate that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 and 7 filed an application in I.A.No.22 seeking prayer to return the additional written statement dated 01.04.2022 as not pressed, as the same is defective in nature, by filing the written statement and permitting them to file fresh written statement. The said application is accompanied with memorandum of facts by the counsel who was appearing on behalf of the said defendant. The memorandum of facts indicate that there was an inadvertent mistake in obtaining the signature of the defendant No.6 in the additional written statement. 6. It is also required to be noticed that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 and 7 have filed I.A.No.23 under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking prayer to return the additional written statement filed on 01.04.2022 as not pressed, by substituting the correct written statement. The said application was accompanied with an affidavit of - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 Sri.G.V.Vishwanath, the defendant No.5 in the suit. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit clearly indicates that the defendant No.6 being the family member, though was placed ex parte, her signature was obtained and an additional written statement was filed and it is an unintentional and bona fide mistake. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the filing of the additional written statement by obtaining the signature of the defendant No.6 who was placed ex parte was a bona fide act and unintentionally proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner by allowing the other applications of the aforesaid defendants. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court calling for interference in this petition. 7. It is to be noticed that the application filed by the plaintiff alleging that the signature of Smt.Vasantha was forged, is only an assertion and without any basis and - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010304132022 NC: 2026:KHC:38146 W.P. No.13447/2022 the very same defendant has to come before the Court and contend that her signature is forged. In the absence of any such instance and at the instance of plaintiff, no proceeding can be initiated against the other defendants and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application for initiation of the criminal proceedings. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32