- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4135 WP No. 29365 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29365 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. C H RAJESHWARI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O K NARAYANA SWAMY 2. K NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O SRI KEMPAIAH BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.43, 4TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, OPP: VIDYAVERDHAKA COLLEGE 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M R SHALAMALA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SRI GANGA SIDDAIAH RESIDING AT KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA VILLAGE AREOMMANAHALLI POST THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI NELAMLANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DILSTRICT - 562 123 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4135 WP No. 29365 of 2025 2. SRI THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE K THIMMAIAH 3. SRI T NEELARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE K THIMMAIAH 4. SRI T SOMASHEKAR AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE K THIMMAIAH RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.186, 3RD MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KARIYAPPA ROAD (GANESH SAW MILL ROAD ) T.DASARAHALI, BENGALURU - 560 057. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY V JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SRIKANTH.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1742/2020, PASSED BY THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH-43) ON I.A.NO.36 AT ANNEXURE- A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.36 UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4135 WP No. 29365 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant Nos.5 and 6 in O.S. No.1742 of 2020 is directed against the impugned order dated 06.08.2025, whereby, application No.36 filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 seeking amendment of the written statement by incorporating/inserting additional paragraph Nos.22 and 23 to their written statement was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff and perused the material on record. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners/defendant No.5 and 6 and other defendants for declaration of title and for other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4135 WP No. 29365 of 2025 3. The petitioners entered appearance in the suit and filed their written statement comprising of 21 paragraphs. Subsequently, after commencement of trial, the petitioners filed the instant application seeking amendment of the written statement by incorporating/ inserting additional paragraph Nos.22 and 23, which are extracted as hereunder: "22. The defendants No. 5 & 6 respectfully submit that the alleged documents produced by the plaintiff do not disclose the description of the Survey number on the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has created illegal documents and bogus documents on the alleged suit schedule property have allegedly claiming right, title and interest over the alleged suit schedule property. The alleged suit schedule property cannot be identified based on the alleged sale deed document of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had created the signatures of the Late Thimmaiah. 23. The defendant No.5 & 6 submits that on 22.06.2019 the defendant No. 6 registered a police complaint against the plaintiff and others vide NCR No. 534/2019. Thereafter the defendant No. 6 has further registered a complaint before the BESCOM dated 24.06.2019 vide No.577 and issued acknowledgement dated 25.06.2019. The plaintiff has rectified the sale deed for his whims and fancies vide rectification deed dated 18.06.2019 which is illegal under the law. The said rectification deed does not support any approved layout plan. The plaintiff is the master in creating one or the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4135 WP No. 29365 of 2025 other documents on the alleged suit schedule property with an intention to knock of the property of these defendants. The entire alleged documents produced by the plaintiff are false documents same are created for the purpose of filing this frivolous suit after the death of K.Thimmaiah. There are no registered documents standing in the name of plaintiff to show the delivery of possession to him. The Late K.Thimmaiah had not executed any registered documents for delivery of possession to the Ramamani on the alleged suit schedule property". 4. The said application, having been opposed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the amendment application, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record comprising of the proposed amendment, pleadings of the parties and the impugned order will clearly indicate that by way of proposed amendment, the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 merely seek to amplify/elaborate the existing pleadings and the same were essential and necessary for adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. It is also relevant to state that by way of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4135 WP No. 29365 of 2025 proposed amendment, the petitioners do not seek to withdraw or resign from any admission made in the original written statement so as to cause any prejudice to the respondents nor as a valuable right accrued in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff by virtue of the pleadings putforth in the original written statement. It is also pertinent to note that the proposed amendment cannot be said to change or alter the nature or character of the suit and consequently, in the light of the principles governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Apex Court and this Court in various judgments including the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (i) LIC Vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1 and (ii) Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & others 2024 INSC 726, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners, thereby, resulting in miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Hence, I pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4135 WP No. 29365 of 2025 ORDER i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed in O.S.No.1742 of 2020 by the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-43) is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.No.36 filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC stands allowed. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff to file rejoinder/reply, if any, to the amended written statement. v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the amended/additional pleadings are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. vi) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4135 WP No. 29365 of 2025 Both parties are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14