- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563682023 NC: 2026:KHC:47395 W.P. No.24260/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.24260/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUMITRA W/O LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT BEHIND MANJUNATHA TALKIES ARAKERE VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI S.R. PATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571401. 2. SRI. C. VASU S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED 61 YEARS KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571403. 3. SMT. VASANTHA W/O LINGAPPA D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED 59 YEARS R/AT MARUTHI NAGARA 1ST BLOCK, BANDAHALLI ROAD BEHIND VENKATESHWARA BAR ANNUR TALUK, ANNUR CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT 571111. 4. SMT. SHIVARATNA D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED 58 YEARS R/AT PALAHALLI VILLAGE BELGOOLA HOBLI S.R. PATTANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571438. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563682023 NC: 2026:KHC:47395 W.P. No.24260/2023 5. SMT. INDRAMMA W/O K.B. APPAJI D/O LATE LINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT. KOMMERAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DIST – 571402. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VRATHIN N.K. ADV., FOR SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571403. 2. SRI. SHIVAPRASAD S/O LATE BORALINGEGOWDA AGED 56 YEARS. 3. SMT. LATHA W/O LATE KRISHNA AGED 51 YEARS. 4. SRI. SUPRITH S/O LATE KRISHNA AGED 30 YEARS. 5. SMT. SUPRIYA D/O LATE KRISHNA AGED 28 YEARS. 6. SMT. P.B. PADMA W/O SANNAPPA D/O LATE BORALINGEGOWDA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT SHANTHASI NILAYA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563682023 NC: 2026:KHC:47395 W.P. No.24260/2023 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU 570008. 7. SMT. KALADEVI P.B. D/OLATE BORALINGEGOWDA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571428 PROPRIETOR OF SRINIDHI CABLE NETWORKS GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571428. 8. SMT. SHASHIREKHA W/O SURENDRA D/O LATE BORALINGEGOWDA AGED 51 YEARS. R2 TO R5 & R8 ARE R/AT PANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571402. 9. SMT. BANASHANKARI W/O LATE SHIVANANJU D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED 56 YEARS KYATHUMGERE VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571403. 10. SRI. R.G. GURUSWAMY S/O GURUMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT RAGIBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE KIRAGAVALU HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 430. 11. SRI. C.M. RAGHU S/O MAHADEVAPPA - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563682023 NC: 2026:KHC:47395 W.P. No.24260/2023 AGED 48 YEARS. 12. SMT. H.N. GOWRAMMA W/O H.M. NANJUNDAIAH AGED 60 YEARS R/AT HEBBAKAVADI VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571403. 13. SRI. M. RAVI KUMAR S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED 42 YEARS. R11 & R13 ARE R/AT CHIKKAMALAGUDU VILLAGE KIRAGAVALU HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571424. 14. SRI. B.N. UMESHA S/O NAGARAJACHAR AGED 38 YEARS R/AT BABY VILLAGE CHINNAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571455. 15. SRI. K.M. KRISHNA S/O MADEGOWDA AGED 38 YEARS R/AT KARI URALIKOPPALU VILLAGE MENISIKYATHANAHALLI DAKALE BANNUR HOBLI T. NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 571124. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 22.08.2023 PASSED ON IA 4 IN OS NO.545/2017 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC MANDYA AS PER ANNX-H AND REJECT THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE R- 1 BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT & ETC. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563682023 NC: 2026:KHC:47395 W.P. No.24260/2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 22.08.2023 passed on IA.No.4 in OS.No.545/2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Vrathin N.K., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a suit in OS.No.545/2017 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of her 9/24th share in the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits. The defendants filed their detailed written statements denying the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1, and the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1. At that stage, the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563682023 NC: 2026:KHC:47395 W.P. No.24260/2023 plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The trial Court, under the impugned order allowed the application. 4. A perusal of the proposed amendment indicates that in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff seeks to carry out certain corrections which were factually incorrect with regard to the checkbandis and boundaries. In my concerned view, allowing such correction would not cause any prejudice or harm to the other side. 5. Insofar as the proposed amendment to paragraph No.8 of the plaint, by insertion of additional paragraph No.8(a) is concerned, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a specific pleading that she had adopted a daughter by name Aiswarya Raj, from her parents Sri.T.Rajanna and Smt.K.C.Prathima, under a registered - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563682023 NC: 2026:KHC:47395 W.P. No.24260/2023 adoption deed dated 03.10.2018 and the event of adoption is after filing of the suit. 6. It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the plaintiff is one for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the plaintiff seeks to bring on record the factual matrix i.e. the adoption of a daughter during the pendency of the suit. In my considered view, the same would not cause any prejudice or affect the contentions raised by the defendants. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. It is open for the defendants to file additional written statement by raising appropriate contentions. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The defendants are permitted to file additional written statement, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24