- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010438222026 NC: 2026:KHC:48908 WP No. 19860 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 19860 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. G N PARUSHARAMA RAO S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O KEREBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLEHONNURU HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, PIN CODE 577243. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B. K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SEETHA BAI, W/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA @NAGENDRARAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS COOLIE AND AGRICULTURIST 2. SANTHOSH N S/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA @NAGENDRARAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS COOLIE AND AGRICULTURIST BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KEREBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLEHONNURU HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, PIN-577243. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010438222026 NC: 2026:KHC:48908 WP No. 19860 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI ON IA NO. 4 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC IN OS NO.175/2024 DATED 25/04/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 25.04.2026 passed in O.S. No.175/2024 on I.A. No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, seeking amendment of the prayer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought in the application is to seek a declaration that the sale deed dated 18.04.2022 is void, and that such a prayer is not permissible unless the requisite court fee is paid on the market value. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010438222026 NC: 2026:KHC:48908 WP No. 19860 of 2026 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The trial Court has considered the factum of non-payment of the court fee and has held that the requirement to pay the court fee would arise only after the amendment is allowed. Even otherwise, it is open to the petitioner to raise the contention regarding non-payment or insufficiency of the court fee in respect of the prayers sought to be introduced by way of amendment. 6. In the light of the above, the present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1