- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4289 WP No. 26568 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 26568 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. V. SATYAVATHI, W/O LATE K. N. VADIRAJ RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.967, PADMASHRI NILAYA, J. C. CIRCLE, DODDABALLAPUR – 561 203 2. SMT. SUJATHA S. ACHARYA W/O SRI. SRIKANTH ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.967, PADMASHRI NILAYA, J. C. CIRCLE, DODDABALLAPUR – 561 203 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. INDIRA BHAT W/O SRI. N. K. SEETHARAM BHAT, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT ISWARY NILAYA, BEHIND COURT COMPLEX, GOWRIBIDANUR – 561 208 2. SRI. K. V. SRINIVAS @ K. V. SRINIVAS HATHVAR S/O LATE K. N. VADHIRAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT 7/4, 6TH CROSS, SRI BHUVARAHA NILAYA, SOMESHWAR EXTENSION,. 4TH WARD, DODDABALLAPUR – 561 203. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4289 WP No. 26568 of 2023 3. SRI. K. V. GURURAJ RAO @ K. V. GURURAJ HATHVAR S/O LATE K. N. VADHIRAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.7/3, 6TH CROSS, BHUVARAHA NILAYA, SOMESHWAR EXTENSION, 4TH WARD, DODDABALLAPUR – 561 203 4. SRI M. K. SEETHARAM BHAT, S/O SRI. N. KRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT ISWARY NILAYA, BEHIND COURT COMPLEX, GOWRIBIDANUR – 561 208 5. SMT. K. S. MALATHI W/O K. V. SRINIVASA HATHWAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.7/4, 6TH CROSS, SRI BHUVARAHA NILAYA, SOMESHWAR EXTENSION, 4TH WARD, DODDABALLAPUR – 561 203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4; SRI S.K. NAGARATHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 & R5 ARE SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/08/2023 PASSED BY COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR ON IA NO. 7 IN OS NO. 266/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE D2 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION (IA NO. 7) FILED BY PETITIONER NO. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4289 WP No. 26568 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.266/2018 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.VII, whereby the said application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings and prayers was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the respondents-defendants, the matter was posted for framing of issues, at which stage, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking to incorporate additional prayer together with corresponding pleadings. The said application having been opposed by the respondents-defendants, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4289 WP No. 26568 of 2023 ground that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. In my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application on the ground that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation is contrary to the principles in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shivakumar - AIR 2015 SC 3364, wherein it has been held that whenever an amendment to a pleading is opposed on the ground of limitation, the proper course of action would be to allow the amendment by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the amendment application and by leaving open the question/issue regarding limitation to be decided along with other issues in the suit. 5. 5. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order is contrary to the principles governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LIC v. Sanjeev - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4289 WP No. 26568 of 2023 Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1, Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and a co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Dharwad Bench in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr., Vs. Bandenawaz and Ors – W.P.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. At any rate, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the respondents-defendants if the amendment was permitted especially when the respondents- defendants would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all defences including the defence of limitation, which is to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court, refusing amendment, has clearly occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and allow I.A.No.VII for amendment subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4289 WP No. 26568 of 2023 amendment and by leaving the question of imitation open to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 23.08.2023 on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.266/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur, is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.VII filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs before the Trial Court is hereby allowed subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of the application for amendment i.e., 28.07.2021 and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4289 WP No. 26568 of 2023 iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents- defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation and the Trial Court shall consider the same by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both the parties and proceed further in accordance with law. v) 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 MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51