- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34438 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. N. MUNIRAJ, SINCE DEACEASED BY HIS LRs. M. RAJESH, AGE BOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE N. MUNIRAJ 2. M. VINOD, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE N. MUNIRAJ, 3. SMT. M. KALYANI, AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O LATE N. MUNIRAJ W/O SAMPANGI RAMU 4. SMT M. ASHWINI, AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE N. MUNIRAJ W/O KIRAN KUMAR, ALL RESIDING AT NO. 6, 4TH CROSS, L. B. SHASTRI NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. N. SHYLAJA, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O N. PURUSHOTHAM, NO. 6, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, LBS NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 2. S. SUNIL AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE N. SRINIVAS, RAJA HAIR DRESSES, CHANCHALA RAMAIAH BUILDING, MES ROAD, MUTHYALANAGAR, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 013 3. SMT. VARALAKSHMI, AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O RAVANAPPA, NO.16, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, MES ROAD, NEAR ST. CLARET SCHOOL, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 013 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2025, PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH NO.5), BANGALORE, ALLOWING I.A. FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S. NO.9006/2011 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.1(a) to (d) in O.S.No.9006/2011 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.5), Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 20.09.2025, whereby the application filed by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 the respondent No.1 -plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1 -plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking for partition and separate possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. 4. After commencement of evidence, the respondent- plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint as hereunder: “Amendment Sought For Add the below sentence after the word ‘Mense Profits’ further declared that the plaintiff’s husband Sri.N.Purushotham is lost forever and presumed to be dead.” 5. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC The plaintiff filed this application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC to amend the plaint as sought in the application. By way of amendment the plaintiff wanted to insert to declare that, the plaintiff husband by name N.Purushotham is lost for ever and presume to be dead. 2. The application is supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff contended that, her marriage was solemnized on 12.08.1994 as per the Hindu customs at Corporation Community Hall Jogupalya. The marriage was performed by her parents by spending substantial amount. 3. After the marriage, she was residing along with her husband with her in-laws in the above address. The suit has been filed seeking the declaration and separate possession against the defendants with respect to schedule property. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW1, her counsel noticed that, in the body of the plaint, though the fact of amendment sought was narrated same was not asked in the prayer. 4. The present counsel who advised her and told that, the said prayer is required for the proper adjudication of the case. therefore, filed this application. 5. The plaintiff further contended that, the amendment does not change the nature of the suit or cause of action in the above suit. Accordingly, prayed to allow the same. 6. On the other hand, the defendant filed objections stating that, the application to amend the plaint for inclusion of the additional prayer is not maintainable either in law or on facts. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 7. The application itself is mechanically drafted, without indicating the amendment is in respect of prayer column. By virtue of the amendment the plaintiff is attempting to convert a suit for partition into the declaration and therefore, the amendment sought will definitely change the nature of suit as well as the cause of action. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint at the belated stage. Further, the relief of declaration having become barred by law of limitation. It is settled law that, any amendment which has effect of taking away the right that has accrued to the opposite party by the lapse of time cannot be permitted by way of amendment. 8. The evidence of the plaintiff was concluded long back and DW1 was examined and at that time the plaintiff filed application for amendment to include other properties. Later on, this Court has permitted the amendment to meet the ends of justice. 9. After taking several adjournments and having partly cross-examined DW1, the plaintiff come up with the application alleging oversight and typographical error. At this stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint. Therefore, the application is to be dismissed in the ends of justice. 10. Heard both the sides. 11. The following point that arise for my consideration are: 1. Whether the plaintiff has made out a case in order to amend the plaint as contended in the application? 2. What order? 12. My answers to the above points are as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following: REASONS 13. POINT NO.1: The suit has been filed for the partition as well as separate possession with respect to schedule property. The defendants have filed the written statement, Issues have been framed and both the parties have adduced their evidence and when the case is posted for further cross-examination of DW1, the plaintiff come up with this application in order to amend the plaint as sought in the application. 14. The only contention taken by the plaintiff in the application is that, due to oversight, she did not sought the prayer to declare that, her husband is lost forever and presumed to be dead in the relief column. 15. On the other side, the defendant contended that, the plaintiff has not pleaded the diligence and care taken at the time of filing of the suit and what prevented her from adding that prayer at the time of filing of the suit itself. Further he also stated with regard to the stage of the case and the limitation which bars the remedy of amendment especially when a declaration is sought. 16. I have carefully gone through the amendment sought by the plaintiff in the application as well as the entire pleadings in the plaint. In the plaint averments para No.4, the plaintiff has categorically stated that, with regard to the attempts made by her in tracing her husband and later on, clearly stated that, as on the date of filing of the suit i.e., from 11 years. The entire family has lost all the contacts with her husband and therefore, the husband of the plaintiff is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 seen or heard by the plaintiff or any of her family or friends and therefore, he is lost forever and presumed to be dead. 17. So, on careful perusal of the plaint averments, it is clear that, in para No.4 of the plaint itself she has explained with regard to the status of her husband and therefore, he was lost forever and presumed to be dead. Now by way of amendment, the plaintiff wanted to insert the prayer of the declaration in the prayer column to declare that, her husband Purushotham is lost forever and presumed to be dead. 18. When an application for the amendment is allowed by the Court, it does not mean that, the plaintiff has proved that fact. In other words, mere insertion of the pleadings by way of amendment does not mean that, the Court has accepted that fact. The burden is upon the plaintiff in order to prove that aspect before the Court by way of leading the evidence or by production of the documents. 19. No doubt, the Court has to consider whether the relief claimed is barred by law also. Since in the plaint averments, the misplace of Purushothem is categorically explained in para No.4, it is clear that, the mistake is not intentional and it is due to oversight. 20. More than that, by inserting that prayer, the defendant will not loose anything and no harm will be caused to him by way of amendment. The amendment will not change the nature of case, will not introduce a fresh cause of action, therefore, even though the application is filed at the belated stage that can be considered by the Court. 21. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC clearly says that, if the amendment sought is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case, then the Court has to consider the application with liberal view. Even in this case also, since this is the suit for partition and for separate possession, the rights of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 plaintiff over the schedule property will also determine by inserting this amendment itself. 22. However, the delay in filing the application at the belated stage is also considered by the Court. The matter is of the year 2011, both the parties have already adduced the evidence, therefore, taking into consideration the belated application, this Court is of the opinion that, the application is to be allowed by imposing the cost. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the AFFIRMATIVE. 23. POINT NO.2: In view of the above discussions and reasonings, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A. filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to carry out the amendment.” 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 7. As rightly held by the Trial Court, the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who would be entitled to file amended - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 written statement and contest the amended plaint on all grounds including limitation. 8. It is also relevant to state that the impugned order of the Trial Court is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369, LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. - (2022) 16 SCC 1, LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shivakumar - AIR 2015 SC 3364, 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. It however has to be stated that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date on which amendment application was filed i.e., on 09.07.2025 and by leaving the question of limitation open to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 9. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3374 WP No. 34438 of 2025 ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) It is however made clear that the proposed amendment as allowed by the Trial Court shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from 09.07.2025 i.e., the date of filing of the application and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court. iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner- defendant to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation. iv) 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.: 2 Sl No.: 18