- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1504 WP No. 34506 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34506 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: RAMAMURTHI S/O SONNAPPA.C.M AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.50, MALLUR VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGATTA TALUK - 562 105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.S.MAMATHA S/O. SONAPPA W/O. C.V.MOHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A JAYANTHI GRAMA, ABBULULDU POST, BASHETTYHALLI HOBLI, SIDLAGATTA TALUK - 562 105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 2. JAYALAKSHMI M S D/O SONAPPA W/O VENKAT REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A VIJAYA NAGARA BADAVANE, 5TH WARD, VIJAYAPURA, BENGALURU - 562 101. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1504 WP No. 34506 of 2025 3. SONAPPA C M S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/A NO.50, MALLUR VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGATTA TALUK - 562 105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 4. SRINIVASA M S S/O. SONAPPA.C.M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A MALLUR VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGATTA TALUK - 562 105, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 5. BANK OF BARODA HEAD OFFICE AT BARODA BHAVAN R.C.DUTT ROAD, ALKAPURI, BARODA - 390 007 GUJART STATE BRANCH AT DEVANAHALLI TOWN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MAHESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, S/O LATE SHEOSHANKAR LAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 101, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24-09-2025, ANNX-F ON IA NO.III IN O.S.NO.342/2022, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1504 WP No. 34506 of 2025 THIS WRIT 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 filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.342/2022, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli concurrent charge of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli is directed against the impugned order dated:24.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.III, whereby the said application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that respondent Nos.1 and 2/ plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/ defendant No.2 and other defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs. Prior to completion of pleadings and even before the petitioner/ defendant No.2 filed his written statement, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1504 WP No. 34506 of 2025 instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by certain modifications to the schedule of the plaint and plaint averments. By the impugned order, the Trial Court proceeded to allow the application for amendment filed by the plaintiffs by holding as under: "O.S.No.342/2022 24-09-2025 ORDERS ON I.Α.ΝΟ. III The I.A.No.3 is filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of C.P.C praying to permit the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as prayed in the application and such other relief. 2. In the accompanying affidavit, the plaintiff No.1 has contended that after completion of the evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 to 3 have filed their written statement. It is alleged by the defendants that the suit item No.3 out of 12 guntas, she has got as per the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.488/2024. The remaining measurement is 17 guntas. To that effect, the issues has been already framed. Therefore, it is necessary to correct the measurement of the item No.3 of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 has filed objections contending that the plaintiffs have not shown due diligence to allow the applications. The plaintiffs are intending to delete the measurement i.e., not permissible. The plaintiff has not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1504 WP No. 34506 of 2025 approached the Court with clean hands. At this stage, the application is not maintainable. Hence, it is prayed to dismissed the application. 3. Based on the above said facts, the following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the real question in controversy between the parties? 2) What order? 4. Findings to the above points are as follows: Point No.1: Affirmative Point No.2: As per final Order for the following: REASONS 5. Point No.1:- The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for Partition and Separate Possession. The defendants have filed written statement contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and they have prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. Based on the pleadings, the relevant issues have been framed. After completion of the plaintiffs evidence, the present application has been filed. 6. The plaintiff No.1 has contended in her affidavit, that the after completion of the plaintiffs evidence only, the defendants have filed their written statement. In - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1504 WP No. 34506 of 2025 their written statement they have specifically contended that the defendant has got 12 guntas of land in item No.3 of the suit schedule property as per the Civil Court order in O.S.No.488/2024. To that effect, the issue is also framed. Therefore, it is essential to amend the measurement. Though, the defendant No.2 has contended that the application is not maintainable the stage, the plaintiffs have no occasion to correct the schedule before presenting the plaint. Because of the stand taken by the defendants only, the plaintiffs are intending to correct Schedule. If the proposed amendment is allowed, no hardship will caused to the defendants. Because, the plaintiffs is going to reduced the measurement of the item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. The nature of the suit will not change. The principle of due diligence cannot be applied because after completion of the plaintiff evidence and defendants have filed their written statement. Thereafter, the issues have been framed. Immediately, after framing of issues the present application has been filed. There is no delay in filing of the application. Therefore, in order to decide the question in controversy between the parties. It is just and necessary to allow the application. Accordingly, the Point No.1 held in the Affirmative. 7. Point No.2: For the above said reasons while discussing point No.1 the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1504 WP No. 34506 of 2025 ORDER The application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Sec. 151 of C.P.C is hereby allowed. The plaintiffs are, permitted to amend the plaint. Call on for compliance of order and amendment and amended plaint by: 30.10.2025." 4. Upon re-consideration, re-appreciation and re- evaluation of the entire material on record including the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the proposed amendment does not in any way change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action and the petitioner would be entitled to file his written statement/ additional written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiffs including the amended plaint and as such it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order which allows the amendment and leaving open all the contentions urged by both sides. Under these circumstances, in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1504 WP No. 34506 of 2025 the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam & another v/s. Chhabi Nath & others1, K.P.Nataranjan v/s. Muthalammal2 and Mohamed Ali v/s. V.Jaya & others3, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ORDER i. The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file written statement/ additional written statement to the amended plaint and to proceed further in the matter. iii. All rival contentions between the parties on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 1 (2015) 5 SCC 423 (also cited as 2015 5 SCC 426) 2 AIR 2021 SC 3443 3 (2022) 10 SCC 477