HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21209 WP No. 29411 of 2015 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 29411 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B.C.RAJANNA S/O LATE R.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT AVALAHLLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGO NAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.SHAMANNA S/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, 2. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA S/O M.SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. SRI NARAYANAMMA S/O M SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O M SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 5. SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA S/O M SHAMANNA, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21209 WP No. 29411 of 2015 2 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 6. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O M SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 7. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O M SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DEFENDANT NO.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT M.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 013. 8. SRI MARIYAPPA S/O LATE HOTTEPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KANNUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S 8(a) SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 8(b) SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 8(c) SRI GANGADHAR S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 8(d) SRI KEMPARAJU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21209 WP No. 29411 of 2015 3 8(e) SMT RAJAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.8(a) TO (e) ARE R/AT KANNUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 078. 9. SRI NARENDRA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 10. RAGHU S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.9 & 10 ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY V/O/DTD:10.07.2025-NOTICE TO R7-HELD SUFFICIENT; R5, R6, R8(d & e) R9 & R10 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.06.2015 ONE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DEVANAHALLI IN O.S. 1691/2006 ON AN APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21209 WP No. 29411 of 2015 4 ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order on I.A.No.17 dated 09.06.2015 in O.S.No.1691/2006 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has allowed the application, I.A.No.IX under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC directing impleadment of defendant Nos.11 and 12 in the suit while the application, I.A.No.XVII under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint has been allowed in part. Further, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the first part of the proposed amendment sought in I.A.XVII on the ground that the proposed amendment is a pre-trial amendment and the proposed amendment that was sought by the petitioner/plaintiff has previously been deleted from his plaint. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the challenge in the present petition is limited to the order on I.A.No.XVII. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21209 WP No. 29411 of 2015 5 3. This Court had by its order dated 19.02.2026 passed the following directions: “1. This matter had been called out three times before this Court. There has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has taken steps with respect to unserved respondents and even filed an affidavit stating that the respondents are either no more or have been placed ex- parte. 3. This Court had after briefly examining the matter on 30.01.2026, passed the following order: "5. The issue in the present case revolves around an application for amendment of the plaint, part of which was disallowed by the learned Trial Court by the Impugned Order. The Impugned Order premises itself on the fact that the plaintiff himself had deleted the proposed amendment on 09.06.2006 and eight years after this deletion, he has once again sought for the same amendment. Therefore, Trial Court has held that an admission made in favour of the defendants cannot be taken away by way of an amendment. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is set out below. "20. No doubt, the proposed amendment is pre- trial amendment. But, first part of the proposed amendment was deleted by the plaintiff himself on 9-6-2006, 8 years after deletion of the proposed first part of the amendment, he has sought the same." 6. However, neither the earlier amendment application nor the orders of 09.06.2006 have been placed on record by the petitioner. Thus, the relevant documents which have been relied upon in the Impugned Order have not been placed on record." 4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has this morning filed certified copy of these documents. The same are however not on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that I.A.No.3 filed in the year 2006 is not available on the court file. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21209 WP No. 29411 of 2015 6 5. The Registry is directed to immediately requisition the record of the Trial Court…….” 4. Thus, and in terms of the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 30.01.2026 and given the pendency of this matter for the last more than 10 years, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide this petition finally. 5. This Court has examined the Trial Court Record received. Although an amended plaint is referred to in the orders dated 09.06.2006 as well as 12.06.2006 passed by the learned Trial Court and an amended plaint has been filed on 12.06.2006, no application for amendment (IA No.3) is available on the record of the Trial Court. 6. The Impugned Order, however premises itself entirely on this amendment application in the following manner: “20. No doubt, the proposed amendment is pre-trial amendment. But, first part of the proposed amendment was deleted by the plaintiff himself on 9-6-2006, 8 years after deletion of the proposed first part of the amendment, he has sought the same. xxx xxx xxx 22. In the instant case, the first part of the proposed amendment was deleted by the plaintiff himself in the year 2006. He had knowledge about it. After 8 years, he has sought for first part of the proposed HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21209 WP No. 29411 of 2015 7 amendment. On the basis of first part of the proposed amendment, if the fresh suit is filed, it is barred by limitation. Such an amendment cannot allowed as per clause 6 of the rulings cited to above. Therefore, the first part of the proposed amendment cannot be allowed, liable to be dismissed.” [Emphasis Supplied] 7. In view of what is stated above, this Court deems it apposite to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court to examine whether the application (I.A.No.3) is available on record and if necessary, to direct reconstruction of the missing document(s). 8. Given the fact that this matter was pending before this Court for a substantial period of time and the fact that this is a pre-trial amendment, the learned Trial Court is also requested to examine the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC afresh. 9. The Registry shall immediately send back the entire Trial Court Record to the learned Trial Court. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21209 WP No. 29411 of 2015 8 10. Let the parties appear before the learned Trial Court on 20.06.2026, the date already fixed by the learned Trial Court. 11. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA