- 1 - 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.100225 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O. MAHANTAYYA KALAMATH, BY LEGAL HEIRS BY DECEASED PLAINTIFF. 1(a) SRI. SHANKARAYYA S/O. SANGAYYA HIREMATH, AGE 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKANAL, TALUK. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT. 1(b) SRI. NILAKANTAYYA S/O. SANGAYYA HIREMATH, AGE 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE AND ADVOCATE, R/O. CHIKANAL, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587202. - PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHANTAVVA W/O. SHARANAYYA KALMATH, AGE 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALUTAGI, TQ. YELABURGA, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583236. 2. SRI. MAHANTAYYA S/O. SHARANAYYA KALMATH, AGE 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALUTAGI, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583236. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - 3. SMT. GEETHA W/O. SHARANAYYA KALMATH, AGE 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. KODIKOPPA, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG, PIN-583236. 4. SRI. BHADRAYYA S/O. SHARANAYYA KALMATH, AGE 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALUTAGI, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL. 5. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. AJJAYYA HIREMATH, AGE 20 YEAR, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. DAMMUR, TQ. YELBURGA. 6. SRI. KALAKAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA WALIKAR, AGE 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALUTAGI, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL. 7. SMT. KAMALAXI W/O. AKHANDAPPA MAYACHARI, AGE 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE. 8. SMT. MANJAVVA W/O. SANGAPPA YARAGERI, AGE 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE. 9. SRI. SRISHAILA S/O. KENCHAPPA CHAKARI, AGE 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE. 10. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. SHIVAKUMAR MAVINAKAYI, AGE 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE. 11. SRI. KALAKAPPA S/O. HANAMANTHAPPA CHAKARI, AGE 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE. 12. SRI. HANAMANTHAPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA CHAKARI, AGE 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE. 13. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. GAVISIDDAPA KUNTOJI, AGE 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE. 14. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJ YARAGERI, AGE 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, - 3 - ALL ARE R/O. BALUTAGI, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583236. 15. TALUKA GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF DOCTOR, YALABURGA TALUKA, R/AT. YALABURGA, TALUKA. YALABURGA, DISTRICT. KOPPALA-583236. 16. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPALA DISTRICT, KOPPALA-583236. 17. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG SUB-DIVISION /SPECIAL OFFICER, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE AT. YALABURGA, NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE, N.H.367, R/A. YALABURGA, YALABURGA TALUKA LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE, YALABURGA-583236. 18. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BY. SURESH, NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY, YALABURGA TALUKA, YALABURGA-583236. 19. SECRETARY / PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BALUTAGI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, YALABURG TALUKA, KOPPALA DISTRICT-583236. - RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R16 AND R17) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, YALBURGA IN O.S. NO. 14/2011 ON I.A. NO.32 DATED 27/11/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ALLOW THE SAID I.A. NO.32 AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. No. 32 in O.S. No. 14/2011 dated 27.11.2025 by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Yelburga, the plaintiff is before this court. 2. The plaintiff has originally filed a suit for partition. Thereafter, an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 seeking permission to amend the plaint. The same came to be dismissed by impugned order whereby the Court had imposed costs of Rs.500/-. While dismissing the application, the Trial Court has observed that the present case has been posted for defence argument and the counsel for the defendant has completed his argument and at this stage the application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. On a careful scrutiny of the contents of the application and also affidavit filed by the plaintiff, it discloses that it is reflection of the argument canvassed by the counsel for the defendants and further counsel for the defendants had already argued the case, by showing the lacuna and also the defects in the plaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed the present application by relying upon the arguments advanced by the counsel for - 5 - the defendant. The Trial Court has observed that only to fill up the lacuna and also trying to overcome the defects occurred in the plaint and to build a new case, the plaintiff had come up with this application. The Trial Court further observed that the present case is 10 years old and there is a direction by the High Court to dispose of the present case as early as possible. Further, the Trial Court had given sufficient opportunities to the plaintiff and defendants to plead their case and after conclusion of the trial and at the end of the case the present application has been filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not shown due diligence in filing the present application and further the reasons stated in the application and affidavit are not satisfactory. The Trial Court considering the fact that this amendment is filed after lapse of several years and that too after the arguments of the defendants are concluded had dismissed the IA with costs of ₹500/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this amendment is very much necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties and the mere delay cannot be a ground and the Court without appreciating all these aspects had dismissed the petition. It is submitted that an opportunity may be given to the plaintiff. - 6 - 4. Learned H.C.G.P appearing for respondents No. 16 and 17 submits that the Court had rightly considered all the aspects and dismissed the application as the same is filed only with an intention to delay the proceedings. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned H.C.G.P, perused the material on record. The suit for partition is of the year 2011. Admittedly, after the defendants' arguments were concluded, at that stage the application was filed under Order VI Rule 17. The Will basing on which they want to amend the pleadings, is of the year 2011. From 2011 till date of filing of application, why they have not taken steps and why they kept quiet is not known. The party cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings after the commencement of the trial unless it is satisfied that in spite of due diligence these facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that there is no diligence on the part of the plaintiff in bringing these facts to the notice of the Court at the earliest further the amendment cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the Trial Court rightly considering all the aspects dismissed the petition. This Court do not - 7 - find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, 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 BVV CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69