- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010004302023 NC: 2026:KHC:45360 WP No. 231 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PUTTATHAYAMMA D/O LATE DODDA VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KADANAPURADA DODDI VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAHISHA D.J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O LATE MUDDAIAH, S/O LATE DODDA VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. SRI. KARIGIRI VENKATESH K.M S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SMT. ASHWINI K M D/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010004302023 NC: 2026:KHC:45360 WP No. 231 of 2023 5. SRI. K.V. CHIKKAMOOGAIAH S/O LATE DODDA VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 6. SRI. M.V. VENKATAPPA S/O LATE DODDA VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 7. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE DODDA VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 ARE R/AT KADANAPURADA DODDI VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. 8. SMT. MAMATHA W/O D. VARADARAJU, AGED MAJOR, HANNUR VILLAGE, C.K. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHNU G.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2023, NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 12.10.2022 MADE ON I.A.NO.14 IN O.S.NO.368/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), MADDUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.., - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010004302023 NC: 2026:KHC:45360 WP No. 231 of 2023 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 12.10.2022 passed on IA No.14 in O.S.No.368/2013 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri Sathisha D.J., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishnu G.K., for Sri Chandrashekar H.B., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner had filed O.S. No.368/2013 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No.14 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to recall the order dated - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010004302023 NC: 2026:KHC:45360 WP No. 231 of 2023 20.02.2020 passed on I.A. No.9 and the order dated 22.09.2021 passed on I.A. No.13, which were passed mistakenly by the Court due to a misconception regarding the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC and seeking to allow the application filed by the applicant/plaintiff for insertion of three items of properties in the plaint schedule. 4. Perused the averments made in the application, the objections filed by the defendant and the impugned order. 5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had filed I.A. Nos.9 and 13 dated 20.02.2020 and 22.09.2021, respectively, seeking to insert three items in the plaint schedule, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court. The said orders have attained finality. The present application is filed under Section 151 of the CPC to recall the said orders, contending that the earlier applications were filed under a misconception and again seeking to - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010004302023 NC: 2026:KHC:45360 WP No. 231 of 2023 allow the application for insertion of the three items of properties in the plaint schedule properties. 6. The Trial Court, considering the earlier two applications referred to supra and taking note of the fact that, while rejecting the applications on the earlier occasions, it had provided an opportunity to the plaintiff to produce the necessary documents to substantiate the claim for amendment, however, the petitioner failed to produce the same even along with the application in I.A. No.14 and the Trial Court proceeded to reject the application. I do not find any error or perversity in the impugned order calling for interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. SD/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29