- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.17802/2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ASMA KHATUN ALIAS ASMA THATAM W/O SAYED ASLAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MAJOR R/AT NO.251, 6TH MAIN ROAD B BLOCK, J P NAGAR MYSORE 570008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. SYED JAFAR S/O SYED GHOUSE PASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. SRI. BABU S/O SYED GHOUSE PASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. SRI. MUNNA S/O SYED GHOUSE PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 4. SRI. SYED NASIK GHOSE PASHA S/O SYED GHOUSE PASHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 5. SRI. SYED SHABEEK PASHA S/O SYED GHOUSE PASHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT. GUMBAZ ROAD, GANJAM SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA 571124. 6. SMT. ISHRATHUNNISA D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA W/O FAROOQ AHAMMED AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT.NO.604, 2ND MAIN ROAD GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA-571124. 7. SMT. FARAHATHANNISA D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA W/O VALI PASHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT. NEW MUSLIM BLOCK MANDYA ROAD, NAGAMANGALA- 571432. 8. SMT. SYED RAHATHNNISA D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA W/O SAMIULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT. NO.203/15, NEW MUSLIM BLOCK MANDYA ROAD, NAGAMANGALA-571432. 9. SMT. MUSARTHNNISA D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA W/O ANSAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. NO.203/15, NEW MUSLIM BLOCK MANDYA ROAD, NAGAMANGALA-571432. 10. SMT. NIKHATHUNNISA D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA W/O JAMEER AHAMMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 R/AT. NO.129, SMALL MANDYA KERE BEEDI COLONY, MANDYA-571401. 11. SMT. RESHMA BEGUM D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA W/O MOHAMMED ATHIK AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. NO.203/15, E.W.S. KESARE, R.S.NAIDU NAGARA MYSORE- 570007. 12. SMT. HASMATHUNISSA D/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA W/O AZMATH FAROOQI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT.NO.310, JEEVANAPUR MOHALLA CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA DT-562160. 13. SRI. SYED JAKIR PASHA S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT.NO.276, SYED VADI CHANNAPATTANA RAMANAGARA DT-562160. 14. SRI. MAJID PASHA S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT.NO.1665, AMBEDKAR STREET GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA-571124. 15. SRI. SYED SHAKIR PASHA S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT.NO.429/B, SYED VADI CHANNAPATTANA RAMANAGARA DT-562160. 16. SRI. SYED NUJATHUNISA S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE PASHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. SYED VADI, TIPPU NAGARA CHANNAPATTANA RAMANAGARA DT-562160. 17. MR. NIKHIRAJ LRS. OF C.D.S. BEGAMSHA S/O LATE SABOOLAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. ALIPURA VILLAGE THANDEBHABI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-561208. 18 MR. KHALEEL AHMED S/O LATE AHMED JAFFAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. TIPPU CIRCLE BADA MAKHAN, MYSORE-570008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH V, ADV., FOR R1 TO R16 V/O/DTD:29.11.2024 NOTICE TO R17 & R18 ARE D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IN I.A.NO.35 DTD. 15.06.2024 IN O.S.NO.01/2011 IN THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA AT ANNX-A. CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.01/2011 IN THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA VIDE ANNX-H & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of the Trial Court in I.A.No.35 dated 15.06.2024 in O.S.No.01/2011 in the file of the Hon'ble Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna at Annexure-A. b) Consequently, quash the proceedings in O.S.No.01/2011 in the file of the Hon'ble Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna vide Annexure-H. 2. Sri.Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 16 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner filed a detailed written statement, trial was concluded and the matter was posted for arguments. At this stage, the respondents- plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 R/W Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to amend the plaint on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold the property in favour of the defendant No.3 on 17.03.2011. It is submitted that the application for amendment was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 filed on 30.05.2024 during the fag end of the proceedings before the Civil Court which is impermissible. However, the Trial Court, without considering any of these aspects, proceeded to allow the application. It is further submitted that there is a clear embargo under the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC for allowing an application without due diligence. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs supports the order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has allowed the application taking note of the fact that the event sought to be brought on record was a subsequent event after presentation of the plaint. It is submitted that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit, there is no amendment to the prayer sought in the petition and no prejudice would be caused to the other side and the proposed amendment is moved to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Hence, he seeks to sustain the order of the Trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record indicates that the respondent has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner herein by making various assertions. The petitioner opposed the said plaint by filing a detailed written statement. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction on 04.01.2011 in the said suit. The records indicate that the respondent moved an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to incorporate the events taken place after the presentation of the plaint. A perusal of the application filed by the respondent indicates that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sold the property in favour of the defendant No.3 and the said fact was intended to be brought on record which was allowed by the Trial Court. It is to be noticed that the fact of execution of the sale deed which - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 the respondent intended to bring on record is dated 17.03.2011 and the application for impleadment is filed on 30.05.2024. There is a delay of more than 13 years in filing the application. Nothing had prevented the respondent to move an application immediately after the alienation if it was in violation of the temporary injunction. It is also to be noticed that if any alienation has taken place during the pendency of the suit in violation of the temporary injunction order of the Trial Court, the principles of lis pendens would definitely apply in the case on hand. It is also to be noticed that proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC clearly bars entertaining the application for amendment after the commencement of trial unless the said application is filed with due diligence. A perusal of the application does not indicate with regard to due diligence. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT.VENKATAMMA NAMASIVAYAM DEAD BY LRs. Vs. SRI.K.ANILKUMAR AND OTHERS1, considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme 1 WP No.16411/25 dt. 08.07.25 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 Court, has held that a party seeking for amendment is required to establish that after due diligence he did not have knowledge about the fact and came to know about the said fact at a later point. Such an assertion is not found in the present application. In my considered view, the Trial Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application for amendment at the fag end of the proceedings. The contention of the respondent that the present amendment sought, would neither change the nature of the proceedings nor there is any prayer to challenge the sale deed also cannot be accepted. It is trite law that during the pendency of the said proceedings, if any sale has taken place, the consequences of law would follow. 6. With the above observation, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4366 W.P. No.17802/2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed on I.A.No.35 filed by the respondents- plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, is set aside. Consequently, the said application is rejected. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties submit that a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. I am of the considered view that no such positive mandamus can be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in a time-bound manner. However, the Trial Court is requested to take note of the pending cases before it and the age of the suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48