- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5978 WP No. 14544 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 14544 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. KADEMADA A POOVAIAH S/O LATE APPACHU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KUNDA VILLAGE, PONNNAMPET NADU, VIRAJPET TALUK, SOUTH KODAGU - 571 216. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. KADE MADA K KARIAPPA S/O LATE KUSHALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 2. SRI K K RAVI KUMAR S/O KARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3. SRI K K SUBRAMANI S/O LATE KUSHALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 4. SRI. K.S. PONNAPPA S/O LATE SOMMAIAH, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5978 WP No. 14544 of 2024 AGED MAJOR, 5. SRI. K.P. UTHAPPA S/O PONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 6. SRI. K.G. MONAPPA S/O LATE GANAPATHY, AGED 52 YEARS, 7. SRI. K.G. MANCHAIAH S/O LATE GANAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 8. SMT. JANAKKI K.N. W/O LATE NANAIAH AGED MAJOR, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 ARE R/AT KUNDA VILLAGE, PONNAMPET NADU, VIRAJPET TALUK, SOUTH KODAGU - 571 216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02/04/2024, MADE ON IA NO. 17, IN OS NO. 29/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC, PONNAMPET, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5978 WP No. 14544 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S. No.29/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ponnampet, whereby the application IA No.17 filed by the petitioner - defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was rejected by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent - plaintiff Instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner - defendant for declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule, immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner - defendant, the respondent - plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim and at the stage of further cross - examination of PW2, the petitioner - defendant filed the instant application seeking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5978 WP No. 14544 of 2024 amendment of written statement by putting forth additional pleadings as hereunder - " 7(a) That the plaintiffs have an alternative right of way road to reach their suit schedule - A properties from the Kunda - Ponnampet main road and the plaintiffs have deliberately suppressed the said fact in order to wreck vengeance with the defendant. That the plaintiffs have also deliberately suppressed the fact that property in Sy.No.11/1 of Kunda village also belong to the plaintiff's family and an area of 1.50 acres out of the local area of 4.36 acres was sold by their elders to one Namera Dickson much earlier. That the said property is located near to the Kunda - Ponnampet main rod and through that property the plaintiffs used to approach their suit schedule - A property from time immemorial and not the road stated in suit schedule B property. That even now the said purchaser is using the same road to approach their purchased property and the wet land in Sy.No.16 of Kunda village which they have purchased along with the property in Sy.No.11/1 as stated above. That there is a road which is well demarcated in the village plan from the Kunda - Ponnampet main road which runs in Sy.No.178 of Hathur village and approaches the property in Sy.No.11/1 of Kunda village which is the boundary of both Hathur village and Kunda village. That the plaintiffs can make use of this road and they were making use of this road only to reach their suit schedule - A property since time immemorial. That the plaintiffs never had any road over the property of the defendant in Sy.No.18 as claimed by the plaintiffs at any time. That the said suit schedule - B road is not shown in the village plan as claimed by the plaintiffs." 3. The said application having been opposed by the respondent - plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5978 WP No. 14544 of 2024 impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner had not established due diligence having been exercised by him prior to commencement of trial as required in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and as such the petitioner was not entitled to any indulgence in this regard. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed to the trial Court rejecting IA No. 17, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the averments made in the affidavit in support of the application, which clearly indicate valid and sufficient cause/ground by virtue of which the petitioner would be entitled to seek the proposed amendment. It is also relevant to state that the proposed amendment is necessary and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and the proposed amendment would not in any way change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action nor the defence put forth by the petitioner, who merely intends to put forth an additional plea by elaborating/amplifying the existing pleadings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5978 WP No. 14544 of 2024 5. Under these circumstances, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., - (2022) 16 SCC 1, and in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & Others - 2024 INSC 726, as well as the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mohammadrafi and Another Vs. Bandenawaz and Others - W.P. No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court refusing amendment has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition, especially when no demonstrable prejudice would be caused to the respondent - plaintiff who would be entitled to file rejoinder/reply to the amended written statement. 6. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and the amendment application deserves to be allowed. 7. In the result, the following - ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5978 WP No. 14544 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ponnampet, on IA No.17 filed by the petitioner - defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is set aside. (iii) IA No.17 filed by the petitioner - defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent - plaintiff to file rejoinder/reply to the amended written statement. (v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the amended pleadings are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36