- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2709 WP No. 27405 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27405 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BASAVARAJU @ LORRY BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SON OF SRI.MALEGOWDA 2. SRI.KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SON OF SRI.MALEGOWDA 3. SRI. SHANTHAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS SON OF BASAVARAJU @ LORRY BASAVARAJU PETITIONERS NO.S 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.2, HOSPITAL BLOCK, VINAYAKA BADAVANE, K R NAGARA TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT BHARATHI WIFE OF SRI.RAMEGOWDA B R AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.5420, VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION, 2ND PHASE, 4TH STAGE, MYSURU – 570 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.04.2024 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2709 WP No. 27405 of 2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 7 IN OS 12/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGAR VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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 defendants 1 to 3 is directed against the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.12/2023 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Nagar, Mysuru, whereby the said application filed by the respondent – plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that the respondent- plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration and permanent injunction and other reliefs against the petitioners-defendants in relation to the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of plaint and the same having been opposed by the petitioners-defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2709 WP No. 27405 of 2024 impugned order allowing the application for amendment, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that while the Trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed, particularly in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of LIC vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., - (2022) 16 SCC 1; L.C.Hanumanthappa (since dead by L.Rs) vs. H.B. Shivakumar – AIR 2015 SC 3364 and Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu & Another – AIR 2002 SC 3369, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by clarifying that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from 06.11.2023, on which date amendment application was filed by respondent-plaintiff. 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2709 WP No. 27405 of 2024 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order passed by the trial court. (ii) It is however made clear that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from the date on which the I.A.7 was filed i.e., from 06.11.2023. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners-defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and raise all defences including maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation, identity of property etc., which shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2709 WP No. 27405 of 2024 (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects including limitation etc., are kept open to be decided by the Trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.