- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010597572026 NC: 2026:KHC:51786 WP No. 27049 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27049 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. K. SHANKAR, S/O KEMPAIAH. M, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A SEEGEPALYA VILLAGE, KAMBALU POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 123. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESH S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT K P CHAMPAKAMALA DEVI D/O LATE K.S. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NO.2413/A,17TH MAIN RAOD, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040. 2. SRI.K.P. CHAMPAKADHAMA SWAMY S/O LATE K.S.PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A NO.291,1ST A MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 086. 3. SRI.K.P. RAMESH, S/O LATE K.S.PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/ANO.1639,1ST CROSS, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010597572026 NC: 2026:KHC:51786 WP No. 27049 of 2026 RAMAMOHANAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 021. 4. SRI.SACHIN. J S/O SMT.K.P.NETHRAVATHI, G/S/LATE.K.S.PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NO.1408,1ST N BLOCK, RAJAINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 5. SRI. K.P. RAGHUNANDAN, S/O LATE K.S. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A NO. 15, 4TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 021. 6. SMT. K.P. VEENA D/O LATE K.S.PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO. 3319, 4TH CROSS, GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU 560021 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OLD NO.V.O.S.NO.77/2026 NOW RENUMBERED AS PASSED BY IST ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA IN O.S.NO.570/2026B. PASS ORDER AND QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:21.07.2026 PASSED IN OLD NO.V.O.S.NO.77/2026 NOW RENUMBERED AS PASSED BY IST ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA IN O.S.NO.570/2026. VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010597572026 NC: 2026:KHC:51786 WP No. 27049 of 2026 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed impugning the order dated 21.07.2026 passed on I.A. No.4, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), came to be allowed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the property bearing Kaneshumari No.163/3 is sought to be included as one of the items in the suit schedule property by way of amendment. It is submitted that, while passing orders on I.A. Nos.2 and 3 dated 21.07.2026, the trial Court has held that the petitioner is the owner of the said property and, accordingly, has declined to grant an order of injunction. 2.1 It is further submitted that, having recorded a finding that the property described as Item No.4 belongs to the petitioner, the proposed amendment and the prayer relating to the said property are impermissible. 3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010597572026 NC: 2026:KHC:51786 WP No. 27049 of 2026 4. The trial Court, having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the suit and the pleadings of both parties, has held that the amendment is required to be permitted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is further held that the contentions raised by both parties are required to be considered after a full-fledged trial. 5. It is also to be noted that the amendment has been sought on the basis of the documents produced along with the written statement and even before the commencement of recording of evidence. Mere permitting of the amendment to incorporate the pleadings and the prayer would not, by itself, prejudice the rights of the petitioner, as the amended pleadings would be subject to the evidence to be adduced in the course of the trial. 6. It is a settled position of law that an amendment relating to the dispute involved in the suit ought to be permitted, wherever necessary, to avoid prejudice to either party, prevent multiplicity of proceedings and facilitate comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court has rightly held that - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010597572026 NC: 2026:KHC:51786 WP No. 27049 of 2026 the amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. 7. The finding recorded by the trial Court while considering the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is only prima facie in nature and cannot be treated as conclusive. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28