- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20625 WP No. 19894 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19894 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT ERAKKA W/O LATE T.Y.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. T.R.PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE T.Y.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. T.R.BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE T.Y.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. T.R.ANITHAMMA D/O LATE T.Y.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. T.R. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE T.Y.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 6. T.R.JAYALAKSHMI S/O LATE T.Y.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT YELLAPPANAYAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, Y.N. HOSAKOTE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20625 WP No. 19894 of 2022 AND: 1. R SATHYANARAYANAPPA S/O LATE POOJARI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT YELLAPPANAYAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, Y.N. HOSAKOTE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 2. TIRUMALA RANGASWAMY @ T.R.SWAMY S/O LATE THIMMAPPA S/O LATE POOJARI GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, VALMIKI NAGARA, TUMKUR TOWN AND DISTRICT - 572 101. 3. PURUSHOTTAMA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA S/O LATE POOJARI GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, VALMIKI NAGARA, TUMKUR TOWN AND DISTRICT - 572 101. 4. M.N. SATHYANARAYANAACHARI S/O K. NAGABHUSHANACHARLU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT A-3 DIVISION, NEAR NEW CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE Y.N. HOSAKOTE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST - 572 101. 5. B.S. SHAILAJA W/O M.N. SATHYANARAYANAACHARI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT A-3 DIVISION, NEAR NEW CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE Y.N. HOSAKOTE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20625 WP No. 19894 of 2022 6. K. GOPALA S.O K.NAGABHUSHANACHARLU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.2/16, PEDDABAZAR, PUTTAPARTHI TOWN - 515 133 ANANTHAPUR DIST A.P. 7. SMT. R.G.SHARADHA RANI W/O K.GOPALA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.2/16, PEDDABAZAR PUTTAPARTHI TOWN - 515 133 ANANTAPUR DIST A.P. 8. V.N.SHIVASHANKARAACHARI S/O K. NAGABHUSHANACHARLU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.7-5-34, KAMASALAPETA HINDUPUR TOWN AND TALUK-515 201 ANANTAPUR DIST A.P. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KUMARA SWAMY M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND 3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA IN O.S.NO.78/2017 ON IA UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20625 WP No. 19894 of 2022 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.XIII in O.S.No.78/2017 by the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Pavagada (for short 'Trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Kumara Swamy M., learned counsel for the Caveator/respondent Nos.2 & 3. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration in relating to item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property and for a relief of adverse possession with regard to the item No.3 of the suit schedule property. Later, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint to delete the prayer for adverse possession by substituting the same for specific performance of contract. As the plaint averments clearly indicate that one Thimmappa has executed agreement of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20625 WP No. 19894 of 2022 sale dated 19.04.1989 and based on such agreement of sale, he has executed registered sale deed on 12.02.1997 with regard to item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. However, he could not execute the sale deed with regard to item No.3 of the suit schedule property, which can be found from paragraph 3 to 6 of the plaint. Hence, the plaintiffs thought that they can enforce their right under the agreement of sale by seeking amendment to the plaint. The Trial Court under the impugned order, rejected the said application. 4. A perusal of the application indicates that the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit for relief of the declaration and adverse possession, filed an application seeking to delete the prayer(b) for adverse possession by substituting the same for specific performance of contract under the agreement of sale dated 19.04.1989. It is to be noticed that the plaint averments indicate that one Sri.Thimmappa has offered to sell the suit schedule properties under the agreement of sale dated 19.04.1989 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20625 WP No. 19894 of 2022 and thereafter, he has executed the registered sale deed dated 12.02.1997 with regard to item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. With these averments in the plaint, the petitioners have sought a further relief of adverse possession with regard to item No.3 of the suit schedule property. The parties have adduced the evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners reopened the case and adduced further evidence and again after conclusion of the trial, they moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to incorporate the substitution of prayer(b) in the plaint. 5. The Trial Court under the impugned order, recorded the reasons that the application for proposed amendment of the plaint is filed after conclusion of the trial. The entire nature of suit would change and there is no explanation or due diligence to be noticed in the affidavit filed accompanying the application for amendment. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20625 WP No. 19894 of 2022 application does not indicate due diligence as to why such a relief was not prayed for when the suit was filed in the year 2017. The present application is filed in the year 2022 after conclusion of the trial. The Trial Court taking note of the same has rightly to come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to allow the amendment and rejected the application. I do not find any error in the observations made by the Trial Court and hence does not call for any interference in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits. The same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: SG