- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067702021 NC: 2026:KHC:38773 W.P. No.3061/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3061/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. Y.M. PUSHPA W/O LATE K.N. MALLAPPA AGED 67 YEARS R/O RAILWAY STATION ROAD BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALORE DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA R.C. ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. K.N. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O B.M. RUDRAPPA D/O LATE CHAKKALI NAGAPPA AGED 70 YEARS HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O DIVA NO. 197, 1ST STAGE VINOBHANAGARA SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 204. 2. SRI. M.N. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE CHAKKALI C B NAGAPPA AGE 64 YEARS R/O RAILWAY STATION ROAD BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALORE DIST. 3. SRI. B.M. YOGISH S/O LATE K.N. MALLAPPA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067702021 NC: 2026:KHC:38773 W.P. No.3061/2021 AGE 41 YEARS R/O RAILWAY STATION ROAD BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALORE DIST. 4. SMT. K.M. SUNITHA W/O GIRISH AND D/O LATE K.N. MALLAPPA AGE 39 YEARS R/O RAILWAY STATION ROAD BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALORE DIST. 5. SMT. K.M. SUPRITHA W/O MITHUN AND D/O LATE K.N. MALLAPPA AGE 36 YEARS R/O RAILWAY STATION ROAD BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALORE DIST. 6. SMT. SUCHITHA D/O LATE K.N. MALLAPPA AGE 34 YEARS R/O RAILWAY STATION ROAD BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALORE DIST. 7. SMT. K.N. SAROJAMMA W/O DR. Y.M. GURUNANJAPPA D/O LATE CHAKKALI C B NAGAPPA AGE 67 YEARS R/O LAKSHMISHANAGARA KADUR TOWN - 577 548. 8. SRI. K.N. EKANTHAPPA S/O K.B. NANJUNDAPPA AGE 66 YEARS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PMGRYS, 13TH CROSS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067702021 NC: 2026:KHC:38773 W.P. No.3061/2021 60 FEET ROAD WARD NO.17, VINOBHANAGARA SHIMOGA CITY. 9. SRI. K. SRINIVAS S/O T. KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/OF MARUTHI CYCLE MART NEW BUS STAND ROAD KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASUBRAHMANYA BHAT, ADV., FOR R1 R2, R3, R8, R9 SERVED V/O/DTD:06.07.2026, NOTICE TO R4 TO R7 IS H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 04.02.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.45 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KADUR IN O.S.NO.15/2013 VIDE ANNX-E & 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 petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a) Call for the records; b) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed on IA.No.45 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067702021 NC: 2026:KHC:38773 W.P. No.3061/2021 and JMFC at Kadur in O.S.No.15/0013 at Annexure-E. c) Grant such other relief as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.15/2013 seeking partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a detailed written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is defendant No.2, filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the written statement. The plaintiff opposed the said application. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed IA.No.45 on the ground that the application had been filed after lapse of seven years, - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067702021 NC: 2026:KHC:38773 W.P. No.3061/2021 that too after the completion of evidence, and when the matter was posted for final arguments. 4. It is to be noticed that in the proposed amendment to the written statement, defendant No.2, the petitioner herein sought to incorporate certain facts to the effect that, during the lifetime of Sri.C.B.Nagappa, he had purchased the properties in item Nos.2, 5, 6 and 23 of the plaint schedule properties and after his death, his sons i.e., Sri.K.N.Mallappa and Sri.K.N.Chandrasekharappa (defendant No.1) were residing separately by doing areca cheni business. It is also averred that, Sri.K.N.Mallappa, Sri.K.N.Chandrasekharappa and defendant No.3, the son of Sri.K.N.Mallappa, had purchased the remaining plaint schedule properties out of their earnings and that neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants have any manner of right over the suit schedule properties. 5. However, in paragraph No.9 of the written statement defendant Nos.2 and 3 pleaded that during the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067702021 NC: 2026:KHC:38773 W.P. No.3061/2021 lifetime of Sri.Chakkali C.B. Nagappa, he was managing the affairs of the family and that the income derived from the properties was not sufficient for better management of the family members. They further pleaded that after the death of Sri.C.B.Nagappa, deceased Sri.K.N.Malappa and defendant No.1, Sri.K.N.Chandrashekharappa were doing areca processing business, and they have purchased the suit schedule properties out of their earnings. 6. The trial Court, considering the proposed amendment has rightly come to the conclusion that the said factual assertions sought to be introduced were already part of the written statement on record, and that the suit is of the year 2013, and the application had been filed after the lapse of seven years, that too after the completion of evidence by both parties, and when the matter had been posted for final arguments. It is also required to be noticed that there is no due diligence shown in the affidavit as to why such facts are not stated in the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010067702021 NC: 2026:KHC:38773 W.P. No.3061/2021 written statement filed earlier. In the absence of any due diligence, the proposed amendment to written statement after the conclusion of the trial is impermissible. I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22