- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20624 WP No. 18957 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. 18957 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.20, KATERAMMANAGUDI BEEDHI DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARAJU M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/OF AMBEDKAR NAGAR BEHIND POLICE STATION WARD NO.16 DEVENAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 2. SMT SUMALATHA ALLEGED D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. SRI SHIVAKUMAR ALLEGED S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/OF AMBEDKAR NAGAR BEHIND POLICE STATION Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20624 WP No. 18957 of 2022 WARD NO.16 DEVENAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 4. SRI ASHWATHANARAYAN S/O LATE CHIKKAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 5. SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O ASHWATHANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF SULIBELE ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 6. SRI H ANJINAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/OF AMBEDKAR COLONY WARD NO.16, DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 11 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.05.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI IN OS.NO.22/2012 ON IA NO.6 AND IA NO.7 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND L AND TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND H AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20624 WP No. 18957 of 2022 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.6 and 7 in O.S.No.22/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short 'Trial Court). 2. Sri. A.C.Balaraj for Sri. Nagaraju M., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is defendant No.1 in a suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for partition and separate possession. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff filed applications in I.A.Nos.6 and 7 seeking amendment of the plaint as well as an application to implead the son of the petitioner as a party to the suit. Both the applications came to be allowed by the Trial Court without considering the objections filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would lead to inclusion of self acquired - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20624 WP No. 18957 of 2022 property of the petitioner and in view of the pendency of the proceedings, he would not be able to enjoy the property and without considering any of these aspects, the applications came to be allowed. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. The respondent No.1 and one Sri. Narayanappa, father of the plaintiff and defendant filed a suit in O.S. No.22/2012 seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The petitioner who is a defendant No.1 in the said suit, filed a written statement meeting out the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint. A perusal of the application for amendment indicates that the amendment sought is to correct the typographical error with regard to the name of the first - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20624 WP No. 18957 of 2022 respondent. Insofar as other amendments are concerned, one is with regard to the modification of the claim of share and inclusion of one of the properties which was left out from the purview of the suit. The averment made in the application makes it clear that the said left out property is also a joint family property. Though the said applications was opposed by the petitioner stating that the said property is his self acquired property but later he has gifted the same to the proposed defendant i.e., respondent No.6 herein. It is to be noticed that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has gifted one of the properties in favour of the sixth respondent. Hence, the applications came to be filed. The contention is that the property is self acquired property of the petitioner which has been specifically denied by the plaintiffs in their application. The said issue is required to be considered by the Trial Court on merits. The present applications are filed at the initial stage of the proceedings and the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit nor - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20624 WP No. 18957 of 2022 cause any prejudice to the defendant. It is open for the defendant to file an additional Written Statement. 5. With the aforesaid observations, I am of the considered view that the orders on applications for amendment to plaint as well as impleading the respondent No.6 in the said suit would not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10