HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499412024 NC: 2026:KHC:53964 WP No. 23575 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 23575 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. T.A.THIMMARAJU S/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT THARABAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH RAJ.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PUTTAMMA @ CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA D/O LATE APPANNA, W/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT DODDADASARAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. 2. SMT. MUNILAKKAMMA. W/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT THARABAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. 3. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA. D/O LATE APPANNA, Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499412024 NC: 2026:KHC:53964 WP No. 23575 of 2024 2 W/O RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE, THAGACHUGUPPE, KUMBALGUDU, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE-562114. 4. ASHWATHAMMA. D/O LATE APPANNA, W/O SHIVARAMU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE, THAGACHUGUPPE, KUMBALGUD, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 152 OF CPC DTD. 22.08.2024 IN O.S.NO.343/2009 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE PER ANNEXURE-A TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499412024 NC: 2026:KHC:53964 WP No. 23575 of 2024 3 ORAL ORDER 1. The limited challenge before this Court is to an order dated 22.08.2024 in O.S.No.343/2009 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has allowed an application filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’), for amendment of the decree which was passed on 21.11.2019 based on a compromise petition. 2. It is the case of a petitioner/defendant No.3 that the matter was settled between the parties based on a compromise decree and after a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was filed. Reliance is placed on the Judgment and Decree which has been passed in O.S No.343 of 2009, more specifically the schedule property which has been set out as part of the Judgment and Decree. It is not disputed by the parties that a compromise decree has been passed or that the HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499412024 NC: 2026:KHC:53964 WP No. 23575 of 2024 4 application filed was to correct the boundaries of the schedule property as set out in the decree. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.3 submits that the application was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff on 08.12.2023, and service to defendant No.1 was still awaited when the application was allowed by the Impugned Order. He further submits that he only wishes to be given an opportunity to contest the application and that the relief sought for in the application is not accurate. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that no amendment to the decree has been sought for, however, only the boundaries which were wrongly mentioned were required to be corrected. 5. The order sheet dated 22.08.2024 reflects that the service to defendant No.1 is still awaited. Further, as on the date when the Impugned Order was passed, no HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499412024 NC: 2026:KHC:53964 WP No. 23575 of 2024 5 objections had been filed to the application by any of the defendants/the contesting parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although he delayed in filing objections, He may be given one opportunity to file his objections since the application requires some adjudication as it is not merely the correction of an arithmetic or clerical mistake in the decree. 7. Concededly, the application which has been filed under Section 152 of the CPC, refers to the deletion of a schedule to the east of the suit schedule property. Thus, this application seeks an amendment to the decree. The relevant extract of the application is below: “APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 152 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE The above named Plaintiff begs to submit as follows: That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to amend in the compromise Petition "Delete the schedule East, by: Land of Sarojamma and insert the word in East by: IOC pipeline and Land belongs to Thimmaraju", in the interest of justice and equity.” HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499412024 NC: 2026:KHC:53964 WP No. 23575 of 2024 6 “AFFIDAVIT xxx xxx xxx 3. I further submit that in my Compromise Petition, I have mentioned in the schedule as East by land of Sarojamma, but while it has been surveyed we get to know that the East by schedule is IOC Pipeline and Thimmaraju's land. I pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to amend in the compromise Petition "Delete the schedule East by: Land of Sarojamma and insert the word in East, by: IOC pipeline and Land belongs to Thimmaraju". Hence, it is just necessary to amend the final decree issued by this Hon’ble Court. Otherwise, I will be put to greater hardship injustice and inconvenience. On the other hand, if this Hon’ble Court effects corrections as prayed in the application, no harm or injustice will be caused to the other side. Wherefore, I humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the accompanying application as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.” [Emphasis Supplied] 8. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that it is a typographical error. However, this could be something for the learned Trial Court to examine. Given the undisputed fact that no objections to the application were on record when the Impugned Order was passed, and that the Impugned Order does not contain any reasons why the Impugned Order was passed, this Court HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499412024 NC: 2026:KHC:53964 WP No. 23575 of 2024 7 deems it apposite to set aside the Impugned Order. Accordingly, this Court passes the following directions: ORDER i) The order dated 22.08.2024 in O.S.No.343/2009 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside; (ii) The petitioner is granted three weeks time to place his objections on record; (iii) The learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to decide the objections in accordance with law; iv) Let the parties appear before the Trial Court on 05.10.2026. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA