- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100322 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. JINNAPPA S/O. BABU KAMAGOUD, AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVATAKOPP, TQ. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591220. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJAY S.KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SHANTISAGAR DIGAMBAR JAIN ANATH CHATRASHRAM, RATNATRAYAPURI, SHEDBAL. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHRI. JAMBUKUMAR RAMCHANDRA DAWADA, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHEDBAL, TALUKA. KAGWAD, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591315. 2. SHRI. AJIT DHARMANNA KAMGOUDA, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND PVT. SERVICE, R/O. KAVATAKOPP, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591220. 3. SMT. VIDYASHREE W/O. MAHAVEER SAKALAKANAVAR, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 R/O. NANDAGAON, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591304. 4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. MAHAVEER DATTAWAD, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HARUGERI, TALUKA. RAIBAG, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591313. 5. SMT. HIRABAI W/O. BHUPAL KAGAWAD, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDAGAON, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591304. 6. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. SHRIMANT DHANAGOUDA, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIRAHATTI, TALUKA. ATHANI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591304. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SERVICE OF NOTICE IN R/O R2 TO R6 ARE DISPENSED WITH (V/O/DATED 19.01.2026) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10-12-2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.XII IN O.S.NO.115/2022 BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI AS PER ANNEXURE-H HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWING THE SAID INTERIM APPLICATION NO.XII AS FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE-F, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.115/2022 dated 10.12.2025 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, whereby the trial Court had rejected I.A.No.XII filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In that, respondent No.1 herein had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead itself as defendant No.6 to the suit as the deceased sister of the petitioner had executed a Will in favour of ashram. I.A. filed by respondent No.6 for impleadment was allowed on 17.10.2022. Against that, a writ petition was filed before this Court and that writ petition came to be dismissed on 13.02.2023. Thereafter, on 22.01.2025, I.A.No.XII was filed seeking to amend the plaint stating that the Will is not binding on the petitioner and the Will is a forged one and the said I.A. that is filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. In the order impugned, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiff is intending to amend the plaint and incorporate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 paragraph Nos.8A to 8D and the plaintiff is intending to deny the contention which is taken by defendant No.6 in his written statement. The denial of written statement in his plaint is not required. The plaintiff should prove his case by way of convincing material and plaintiff should adduce the oral and documentary evidence to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff. Further, the record shows that the present suit is filed in the year 2022 and after framing of issues, when the case is posted for plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff did not appear before the trial Court for more than 2 years and he got 10 to 12 adjournments to lead evidence. Thereafter, he filed the above application without adducing any evidence which shows the intention of the plaintiff to drag on the proceedings and cause delay in disposing of the suit and accordingly, the trial Court had rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1/defendant No.6, who is a stranger to the family, is relying upon the Will and the plaintiff is disputing the same and there should be a pleading to that effect. As such, the petitioner has come up with this I.A. The trial Court, without considering the same, had dismissed the I.A. on the ground of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 delay. It is submitted that the delay and latches cannot be a ground for dismissing the application to amend the plaint. 5. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pankaja and Another Vs. Yellappa (Dead) By LRs. And Others1. He has relied on paragraph Nos.14 and 15 which reads as follows: “14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary the same will have to be exercised in a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straight jacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case. 15. This Court in the case of L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co. - A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 357 has held :- "16. It is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should 1 (2004) 6 SCC 415 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the interests of justice." 6. He has also relied on the judgment in case of Mallavva and Another Vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma2, paragraph No.23 which reads as follows: “23. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. (Mahila Ramkali Devi v. Nandram (Dead) through Legal Representatives : (2015) 13 SCC 132.” 7. Learned counsel had relied on paragraph Nos.37 and 38 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ganesh Prasad Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and Others arising out of SLP(C).No.28377/2018 dated 14.03.2023 which reads as follows: 2 2024 INSC 1021 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 “37. Thus, the Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to amend the plaint, written statement or file an additional written statement. It is, however, subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment, an opposite party should not be subject to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the other party is not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed liberally which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided that the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken. 38. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings.” 8. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prejudice will be caused to the defendant if the amendment is allowed and the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ defendant No.6 had drawn the attention of the Court to the issues that are framed, which reads as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 “ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are only legal heirs of deceased Akkatai W/o Malagoud Jayagoud, hence they have succeeded the suit properties as contended in the plaint? 2. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that the deceased Akkatai W/o Malagoud Jayagoud, has executed a registered Will on 08.11.2019 in favour of the defendant No.6 in respect of the suit properties, hence the defendant No.6 has acquired the right over the suit properties as contended in the written statement? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties as sought in the plaint? 4. What order or decree?” 10. It is submitted that already the burden is cast upon defendant No.6 to prove the Will. Whether the plaintiff takes such a pleading or not, as defendant No.6 is alleging his right over the property basing on the Will, the burden lies on defendant No.6 to prove the same. It is submitted that even in their own pleadings, it is stated that the property belongs to the brother-in-law. After the death of brother-in-law, the sister has become the owner of the property and now it cannot be considered as a joint family property and they cannot seek partition of the same. It is submitted that it is the case of the defendant that during her last days, the deceased sister stayed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 in the ashram and she has executed a Will in favour of the Ashram bequeathing the properties in favour of defendant No.6. It is submitted that the trial Court had rightly considered and observed that for 2 long years, even after dismissal of the writ petition by this Court on 13.02.2023 till 22.01.2025, the petitioner has not filed any application and this application is only filed to drag on the proceedings and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. 11. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on several judgments with regard to the scope of an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and when, where and how the amendment can be allowed. After the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, after the commencement of the trial, generally, the parties cannot be permitted to amend the plaint unless it is brought to the notice of the Court, that in spite of due diligence, the petitioner could not file such an application at an earlier point of time. In this case, right from 13.02.2023 till 22.01.2025, the petitioner has taken time further if this application is not allowed, what is the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:540 WP No. 100322 of 2026 prejudice that is caused to the plaintiff is one of the issues that has to be considered. In this case, the Trial Court had already framed the issues and by virtue of issue No.2, the burden is cast upon the defendant No.6 to prove the same. Hence, the trial Court had rightly observed that the plaintiff had come up with this kind of application at this stage only to drag on the proceedings and in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court had rightly considered and rightly dismissed the application and this Court finds no reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is *dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84 * Corrected vide order dated 10.02.2026. Sd/- JUDGE