- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2711 WP No. 32041 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. 32041 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. H S MUNIRAJU S/O H.D. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A HESARAGHATTA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 088. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS 1. SRI. MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SRI .V. LINGAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SRI H.V. SURESH S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4. SRI H.V. NAVANANDA S/O LATE VENKATARASAPPA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R-1 TO R-4 ARE RESIDING AT HOSHALLI PALYA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2711 WP No. 32041 of 2024 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 123. 5. SMT.SIDDALINGAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 6. SRI GANGADARAIAH S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 7. SRI CHANDRA S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R-5 TO R-7 ARE RESIDING AT HOSHALLI PALYA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT -562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4 VIDE ORDER DATED: 10.12.2024, NOTICE TO R-5 TO R-7 ARE D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 248/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT NELAMANGALA, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 05.11.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 9 FILED BY THE R-1 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (ANNX-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA NO. 9 (ANNX-D) BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2711 WP No. 32041 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.1 is directed against the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.248/2016 by the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, whereby the said application filed by the respondents – plaintiffs 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 petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record discloses that the respondents- plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and other defendants in relation to the suit schedule property. During the course of cross-examination of DW-1, respondents- plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of plaint and the same having been opposed by the petitioner-defendant No.1, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2711 WP No. 32041 of 2024 allowing the application for amendment, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Though the various contentions and averments made in the proposed amendment are refuted/disputed by the petitioners, it is well settled that the legality, correctness and merits/demerits of the proposed amendment would necessarily have to be decided by the Trial Court during the course of trial and not at the stage of considering an application for amendment as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors – AIR 2006 SC 1647. 5. 5. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2711 WP No. 32041 of 2024 proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from 10.10.2023, on which date amendment application was filed by respondents-plaintiffs. 6. 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 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. 7. 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.9 was filed i.e., from 10.10.2023. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2711 WP No. 32041 of 2024 (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. (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.