- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25686 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VANI MATAPATHI W/O. LATE S. S. MATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT.NO.1040, SHANTHI NIKETHAN, 1ST STAGE, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, SHIVAKUMARA SWAMI EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 001 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR DODDALINGAIAH MATAPATHI S/O LATE S. S. MATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.123, GRAYHAWK WAY S, MECHANICSBURG – PA 17050, USA 2. SMT. PRABHAVATHI VEERAPPA DHONDE W/O LATE S. S. MATAPATHI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.123, GRAYHAWK WAY S, MECHANICSBURG – PA 17050, USA 3. SMT. SHAKUMNTALA MATHAPATI D/O LATE S. S. MATAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO 11809, AVALYA LANE, CHOLOTTE , NC. 2877, USA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA, IN Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 O.S.NO.1/2023 ON IA NO. 5 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., 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 petitioner-plaintiff in O.S.No.1/2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short “the Trial Court) is directed against the impugned order dated 06.08.2025, whereby the application, I.A.No.5 filed by the respondents-defendants, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the counter claim was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In the impugned order, the Trial Court held as under: “ORDERS ON I.A. No. V This I.A.No.V was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the defendant No.1 seeking to amend the counter-claim by making certain additions in the prayer column and also to add properties in the schedule to the counter-claim. 2. It is contested by the plaintiff by filing her objection statement. I have heard arguments of Smt. DKS Advocate for the defendant No.1 and Sri. BVG Advocate for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 plaintiff. Perused the case file. Now the following points would arise for my consideration:- 1. Whether the defendant No.1 has shown grounds for carrying out the amendment to the counter-claim prayer and to the schedule to it? 2. What order? 3.On going through the submission of both sides, finding on the above points are as under:- Point No.1: In the affirmative; Point No.2: As per final order for the following:- REASONS 4. POINT No.1: Case file shows that the plaintiff approached the court by filing P&SC No.9/2023 in respect of the Will said to have been executed by one S. S. Matapathi on 25.4.2020 claiming herself as his wife. When she was about to take steps by paper publication, the defendant No.1 to 3 appeared through their advocate and obviously with an intention to contest the prayer made in the said summary proceedings. Wherefore this court directed the office to register it as suit and accordingly the defendants filed the written statement as well as counter claim and it is contested by plaintiff by filing her re-joinder. The plaintiff has already adduced her evidence and also examined the witnesses on her behalf as PW1 to 3 and got marked documents on her behalf and when the matter was set down for her further evidence if any, the defendant No 1 has come up with this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 application seeking to amend the counter claim and also to add properties in the schedule to the counter claim. The grounds urged by him for such an amendment is that due to oversight he was not able to plead required things and could not describe the properties in the schedule to the counter claim. He also stated he came to know about the said properties recently through records. 5. Opposing the said application the plaintiff contended that when she has already adduced her evidence, it is not permissible for the defendants to effect amendment to the counter claim and moreover the defendant No.1, who has sworn to the affidavit is resident of USA, but affidavit is sworn before an Oath Commissioner at Chitradurga on 16.7.2025, which is unknown to the law. Further relying on the decisions reported at 2024(1) KCCR 869 (SC) (Basavraj vs. Indira and others) and 2024(4) KCCR 3758 (Smt.BM.Sharada Devi and Others VS. Smt. Pushpamma and Others) it was argued by Sri BVG Advocate that after amendment of CPC, it is not permissible for a party to amend his pleadings, wherefore extending of lame excuse of bonafide mistake or oversight or the mistake etc., cannot be the grounds to amend their pleadings, he prayed to reject the IA, in tune with his objection statement. He also canvassed that first of all for filing improper application and affidavit, the IA is liable to be rejected at its threshold. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the entire case file and find that no doubt as submitted by the plaintiff already she has adduced her evidence by examining herself - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 and her witnesses as PW.1 to 3 by producing good number of documents, but one cannot forget that the defendants have also filed their counter-claim along with their written statement and the said counter-claim is also contested by the plaintiff by filing her re-joinder. When such is the case this case has to be distinguished from routine cases, where there will be no counter-claim or re-joinder. 7. Apart from that all along it is the contention of the defendants that since the defendant No.1 and 3 are permanently residing at USA and defendant No.2 being the real wife of said S. S. Matapathi, is also staying in USA with her son and daughter, so they were not able to supervise the properties or take care of the properties belonging to the said Matapathi. They also contended that taking undue advantage of the advanced age of the said S.S. Mathapathi, the plaintiff has swindled the properties by concocting the Will. When such is the case it would be incorrect to expect the defendants to know all the properties left by the deceased S.S. Matapathi at the very inception or at the time of filing counter-claim itself. 8. Coming to the submission that defendant No.1 has sworn to the affidavit by sitting at USA, it was replied by Smt. DKS Advocate that no doubt the defendant No.1 did not come to India to swear the affidavit accompanying the IA, but through video conference his presence was made available before the Oath Commissioner and oath was administered to him. According to me when world is advancing rapidly with new technologies coming into the market day in and out and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 when communication is developed vastly and e-courts have shrinked the whole world, the judiciary cannot lag behind. I do not find any legal fault on the part of defendant No.1 taking oath through video conference before an Oath Commissioner at Chitradurga by sitting at USA, therefore I reject the said technical object. 9. Now turning to decisions relied by the plaintiff, in Basavaraja's case, the Hon'ble Supreme court noticed that amendment was sought to be made by the party at the fag end of the trial. Therefore Hon'ble court did not entertain the application and apart from that, as on the date of filing of that amendment application relief sought to be made was already barred by time as it was sought to be made after five years 3 months of impugned compromise. In the Sharada Devi's case also on the reason that applicant failed to show due diligence the Hon'ble court rejected that application. 10. In the instant case the ratio laid down in the Cases cannot be pressed to service in the context of defence adopted and set up by the defendants who are the son, wife and daughter respectively of said S. S. Matapathi. Infact the proposed amendment is not going to change the reliefs as sought nor the substance of the counter-claim. The ambiguity whatever that exist in the counter-claim is sought to be clarified by the defendant No.1 by amending the prayer portion and the schedule. Therefore rejecting the grounds urged by the plaintiff, I am inclined to allow the application in hand as it would resolve the disputes between the parties - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 once for all and finally. Accordingly I answer this point in the affirmative. 11. POINT No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A. No. V is allowed. The defendants are permitted to carry out the amendment to the counter-claim and to the Schedule to the counter-claim as prayed.” 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the first instance, the petitioner filed P& SC No.9/23 for grant of probate of an alleged will dated 25.04.2020 alleged to have been executed by S. S. Matapathi in her favour and for other reliefs. In pursuance of paper publication and citation taken by the petitioner before the Trial Court, the respondents have entered appearance and contested the proceedings, disputing and denying not only the alleged relationship of the petitioner with Late S.S. Matapathi, but also disputing and denying the alleged will dated 25.04.2020. alleged to have been executed by S.S. Matapathi in her favour. Accordingly, the said probate proceedings in P & SC No.9/2023 was converted into a contentious suit in O.S.No.1/2023 before the Trial Court. After such conversion, the respondents filed written - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 statement not only disputing and denying the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff, but also put forth a counter claim in relation to counter claim schedule properties. Subsequently during the course of trial and at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff, the respondents-defendants filed the instant application seeking amendment of their written statement, which was opposed and culminated in the impugned order allowing the amendment application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will clearly indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered the rival contentions and has recorded the correct finding that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. The Trial Court has also come to the right conclusion that the proposed amendment which merely seeks to elaborate and amplify the existing pleadings and would not in any way change or alter the nature and character of the proceedings or their cause of action. At any rate, it is needless to state that the petitioner would be entitled to file his reply/rejoinder to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 amended written statement and it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff by allowing the proposed amendment. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing I.A.No.5 is in total and complete conformity/consonance with the principles governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors – AIR 2022 SC 4256, Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. 2024 INSC 726 and the recent judgment of this Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. 6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having 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 the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3841 WP No. 25686 of 2025 (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff to file reply/rejoinder to the amended written statement. (iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61