- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2898 WP No. 9423 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.9423 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHINNAPPA S/O LATE RAMABHOVI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, AMBRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TERIKERE TALUK-577 547 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER SRI RAJIGOWDA, S/O LATE BOMMARAYAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. LATE KANNIAH BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TERIKERE TALUK-577 144. 2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE KANNIAH BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2898 WP No. 9423 of 2025 LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TERIKERE TALUK-577 144. 3. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. GURUSWAMY, D/O. LATE KANNIAH BHOVI @ KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT SIDDALIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK-577 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIKETHANA K.M., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC., TERIKERE BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY PLAINTIFFS IN IA NO.31 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE IA NO.31 AT ANNEXURE-E., ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2898 WP No. 9423 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition by the sole defendant in O.S.No.66/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Tarikere is directed against the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 whereby the application-I.A.No.31 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was allowed by the trial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record indicates that the respondents/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner/defendant, after completion of trial, the respondents filed the instant application seeking amendment as hereunder: "Add para no. 3(a) as "The 3rd plaintiff is the daughter of Late. Kannaiah Bhovi with his 1st wife Kuppamma and she married Guruswamy. After the death of 1st wife Kuppamma, the father of 3rd plaintiff Kannaiah bhovi has married 1st plaintiff Smt Rajamma and out of their marriage the 2nd plaintiff Chandrashekar was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2898 WP No. 9423 of 2025 born. During the life time of Kannaiah Bhovi, he has not bequeathed his share of the property." 4. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application as hereunder: "O R D E R The application filed at IA No.31 by the plaintiffs under order VI rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of CPC is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.1000/-. The plaintiffs are permitted to carry out amendment as sought for. To carry out amendment and to file amended plaint. Call on:07.03.2025." 5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the same is in conformity with well settled principles of law governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors. [AIR 2022 SC 4256] and Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2898 WP No. 9423 of 2025 Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. [2024 INSC 726] as well as the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammadrafi & Another vs. Bandenawaz & Others [W.P.No.108512/2025 DD 16.12.2025]. It is also pertinent to note that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner, who would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and contest the suit on merits. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment cannot be said to contain any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors v. Chhabi Nath and Ors. [(2015) 5 SCC 423], K.P.Natarajan and Ors. vs. Muthalammal and Ors [AIR 2021 SC 3443] and Mohd. Ali v. V.Jaya [(2022) 10 SCC 477]. 6. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Venkatamma Namasivayam (Since Dead by Lrs.) v. K.Anil Kumar and Others [W.P.No.16411/2025 dated 08.07.2025] is concerned, the said judgment was rendered in the facts and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2898 WP No. 9423 of 2025 circumstances obtained in the said case and the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order; (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement and take up all contentions to the amended plaint; (iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the amended/additional pleadings are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same; (iv) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4