- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19631 WP No. 22244 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 22244 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NARASIMHAIAH S/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 74 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) 2. LASKHMAPPA S/O LT HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 73 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) 3. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LT HANUMANTHAPP AGED 52 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VIRUPAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TQ TUMAKURU DIST 572 132. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.R. BALARAJ, ADV.,) AND: SRI H. MANJUNATH S/O LATE HANUMANTAHIAH AGED 56 YEARS R/O VIURPAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TQ TUMAKURU DIST 572 132. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI BOPANNA B, ADV.,) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19631 WP No. 22244 of 2021 THIS W.P. IS FILEDUNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 11.11.2021, PASSED ON IA NO.4 FILED U/O VI RULE 17 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.37/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, VIDE ANNX-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2021 passed on IA no.4 in O.S.No.37/2019 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri V.R.Balaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bopanna.B., learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. Petitioners have filed O.S.No.37/2019 for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners, having right and title over the suit schedule property, and for permanent injunction. 4. Respondent-defendant filed a detailed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19631 WP No. 22244 of 2021 5. The Trial Court framed the issues. At that stage, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendant. 6. The Trial Court vide the impugned order rejected the application solely on the ground that the application is filed at a belated stage and without any due diligence. 7. It is to be noticed that the application is filed immediately after framing of issues and before commencement of trial. It is also to be noticed that by the proposed amendment, the petitioners-plaintiffs are seeking to insert the name of his grandfather one 'Narasimha', instead of 'Government' in paragraph no.2 of the plaint, and further he is seeking to delete the sentence "granted the above said survey number property in the name of grandfather of the plaintiffs under Dharkhastu", and in that place, the words "accepted the katha and pahani in the name of said Narasimha", to be inserted, and also sought for additional relief of delivery of possession. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19631 WP No. 22244 of 2021 8. The said application was opposed by the defendant. A perusal of the objections indicate that the petitioners are making an attempt to overcome the admissions found in paragraph no.2 of the plaint as they had earlier stated that the property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and now they are taking a different stand. 9. It has to be noticed that the present application is filed before commencement of trial immediately after the framing of issues. If the plaintiffs are taking a different stand in the proposed amendment, it is open to the defendant to take up a defence by filing additional written statement. It is also to be noticed that the additional prayer for possession is sought and the same is supported by the pleadings in paragraph no.3 of the plaint. Hence, in my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application for amendment, which is filed at the initial stage of the proceedings i.e., before commencement of trial. Taking note of the same, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19631 WP No. 22244 of 2021 (ii) The impugned order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Trial Court on IA no.4 in O.S.No.37/2019 is set aside; (iii) Consequently, IA no.4 filed by the plaintiffs is allowed; (iv) Defendant is permitted to file additional written statement. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KK