- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010322482022 NC: 2026:KHC:44816 WP No. 14442 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14442 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,. 2. SRI. RAJESH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. SRI. UMESHA @ UMA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHEERANAKUPPE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SAHANA M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NATARAJ BABA K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010322482022 NC: 2026:KHC:44816 WP No. 14442 of 2022 2. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE CHIKKALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHEERANAKUPPE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 01.07.2022 ON IA NUMBER VIII PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KANAKAPURA, IN OS.NO.290/2011 VIDE ANNX-A AND 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 01.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.290/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Kanakapura (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short). - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010322482022 NC: 2026:KHC:44816 WP No. 14442 of 2022 2. Heard Smt. Sahana M., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nataraj Baba K., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shivakumar V., learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The respondents filed O.S.No.290/2011 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein/defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s suit schedule property. In the said suit, defendant No.2 filed written statement on 08.08.2013. The trial Court framed the issues and the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and the said witness was partly cross- examined. Time was sought. After granting sufficient time, the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application to recall PW- 1 to PW-3 for further cross-examination. The said application was allowed. The defendants were permitted to further cross-examine PW-1 to PW-3. 4. At that stage, defendant No.2 filed an application in I.A.No.8 under Order VI Rule 17 read with - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010322482022 NC: 2026:KHC:44816 WP No. 14442 of 2022 Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking to amend the written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, under the impugned order dated 01.07.2022, rejected the said application. 5. It is to be noticed that defendant No.2, in the proposed amendment, is seeking to alter the extent referred to in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the written statement and seeking to add paragraph Nos.10 to 12. The affidavit accompanying the said application indicates that the deponent/defendant No.2 has stated that the extent is mentioned by mistake and that it is only a bona fide mistake. 6. It is to be noticed that the trial Court, under the impugned order, had recorded a finding that the application seeking amendment of the written statement was filed after the commencement of trial and without any due diligence. The trial Court further recorded the reasons that defendant No.2 intended to alter the extent by - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010322482022 NC: 2026:KHC:44816 WP No. 14442 of 2022 bringing in new facts and without any supporting documents. The trial Court also recorded the reason that no grounds were made out to entertain the application for amendment of the written statement after the cross- examination of PW-1 to PW-3 in parts. 7. I do not find any good ground to reverse the said finding in the present petition. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23