- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.39493/2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O SRI. EKASHI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. SRI. M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI. EKASHI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.22, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA 3RD CROSS, R.R.LAYOUT AYYAPPA NAGAR, K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560036. 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O EKASHI MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE SADAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 4. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 5. KUM. SUMA D/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 6. KUM. SUDHA D/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 7. KUM. SUGUNA D/O LATE MUNIRAJU Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 8. SRI. NITHESH S/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 9. SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O EKASHI MUNIYAPPA W/O SRI. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KOTE, KOLARAMMA TEMPLE KOLAR-563133. 10. SRI. B.M. DEVARAJU S/O SRI. EKASHI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. NO.1, 3 TO 8 AND 10 ARE RESIDING AT BELLURU VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563133. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNDARESH G, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. EKASHI MUNIYAPPA S/O SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS. 2. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE PAPAIAH D/O SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS. 3. SRI. B.V. VENKATASWAMY S/O SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 4. SMT. ANNAPURNAMMA D/O B.V. VENKATASWAMY W/O LATE OBALLA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT. BELLUR VILAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563133. 5. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O SRI. B.V. VENKATASWAMY W/O SRI. T.S. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/A 2ND CROSS, NEW EXTENSION NEAR GOVT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL K.R. PURAM, BENGAURU 560036. 6. SRI. H. SRINIVASA S/O SRI C. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 7. SRI. H. KODANDARAMA S/O SRI. C. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 8. SRI. H. RAVINDRA S/O SRI. C. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 9. SRI. Y.H. PADMANABHAREDDY S/O SRI. C. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. NO.6 TO 9 ARE R/AT. RESIDING AT NO.215/A YAMMALURU VILLAGE, YAMMALURU POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU 560037. 10. SRI. SATHISH DUNGRAWALA S/O SRI RAMADEV DUNGRAWALA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 11. SMT. RIJUBALA DUNGRAWALA W/O SRI. PARASAMAL DUNGRAWALA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. NO.10 & 11 ARE R/A AT NO.68-7-1, KRISHNA BLOCK 1ST MAIN ROAD, OPP INDIAN BANK SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU 560020. 12. SRI. G.C. VENKARAJU S/O SRI. CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 13. SMT. S. PADMAVATHI W/O SRI. G.V. VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. NO.12 & 13 ARE R/AT. ANJANAPURA, ANJANAPURA POST KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560062. 14. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT. NEAR NEW BUS STAND TMC WARD NO 10, VIJAYAPURA DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135. 15. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O VENKATARAMAIAH W/O NARAYANASWAMY .P AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO 4850, WARD NO 18 SHANTHI NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 16. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 EYARS R/AT. NEAR NEW BUS STAND TMC WARD NO.10, VIJAYAPURA DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25/11/2025 PASSED IN SUIT O.S.NO.74/2019 ON IA.NO.XXIII BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M AT KOLAR, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 25.11.2025 passed in suit O.S.No.74/2019 on IA.No.XXIII by the court of I Addl. SR. Civil Judge & C.J.M. at Kolar, produced as Annexure-F and allow this writ petition, to meet the ends of justice." 2. Sri.Sundaresh G., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are plaintiffs - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 in O.S.No.74/2019 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint on the ground that the respondents-defendants in their written statement at paragraph No.27 have specifically averred that other than the suit schedule properties, there are other number of properties standing in the name of the plaintiffs and defendants and they are not included in the suit. It is submitted that this aspect was required to be clarified, hence, the proposed amendment was moved, which came to be rejected by the trial Court on the erroneous finding that the application is filed after five years. It is further submitted that unless the petitioners amend the plaint, they would not be able to effectively cross-examine the defendants' witnesses. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the plaint. Hence, seeks to allow the writ petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have filed O.S.No.74/2019 for the relief of partition and separate possession of the properties referred in schedule 'A' to 'D' referred in the plaint. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application came to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for amendment of the plaint, which came to be rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order. 5. A perusal of the proposed amendment would indicate that the petitioners intend to incorporate paragraph No.17(a) in the plaint by clarifying that certain properties are belonging to different persons and they are self-acquired properties of them and not the joint family properties. 6. The issues framed by the trial Court clearly indicate that the burden is on the petitioners/plaintiffs to prove that the whether the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 5 constitute a Hindu Joint Family and the suit properties - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 are their ancestral properties, whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 31.10.1989 and 17.08.2006 are not binding on them, whether the defendant Nos.10 to 13 prove that they are the absolute owners in possession of suit schedule 'A' properties by virtue of the sale deed dated 17.08.2006? 7. A perusal of the aforesaid issues and the pleading on record indicate that the proposed amended would not help the petitioners-plaintiffs in discharging the burden to prove the issues framed in the suit. The assertion of the respondents-defendants in paragraph No.27 of their written statement cannot be a ground to seek amendment of the plaint. The petitioners are required to prove that the properties claimed in the suit are the joint family properties and they are co-parceners along with the defendants. To adjudicate the suit for partition, the proposed amendment is not necessary and it is an admitted fact that the proposed amendment is sought after commencement of trial, the trial Court taking - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3443 W.P. No.39493/2025 note of the embargo under the proviso under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, rejected the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference in the present petition. The petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22