- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100695 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. AKKATAI W/O. GANPATI KHOT, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR. SMT. ANJANA W/O. MANOHAR ZIPARE, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KHADAKLAT, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. KALLAPPA ANNAPPA KHOT, SINCE DEFT. NO.1 DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS L.RS. 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O. KALLAPPA KHOT, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. 2. SOU. YASHODA VASANT PATIL, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BALIKARE, TA. KAGAL-591201. 3. SOU. MANGAL VITTAL PATIL, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 MALLAPPA ANAPPA KHOT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS 4. SMT. SHEVANTA W/O. MALLAPPA KHOT, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. 5. SRI. PANDIT @ PANDU MALLAPPA KHOT, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. 6. SMT. ANANDI BALU PATIL, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BALIKARE, TAL. KAGAL, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416001. 7. SMT. VASANTI KISAN PATIL, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC; HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BALIKARE, TAL. KAGAL, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416001. 8. SMT. SANGEETA VILAS RAMANKATTI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCE: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KURLI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. 9. SMT. SHASHIKALA SHRIKANT KAGALE, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCE: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KURLI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. 10. SMT. NAKULSHA CHANDRKANT VHARALE, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCE: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SADALGA, TAL, CHIKODI-591201. SIDDHAPPA ANAPPA KHOT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS. 11. SHRI. BABASAHEB SIDGONDA KHOT, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. SHINGE KODI, KODANI, TAL. NIPANI-591237. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 12. SHRI. NILESH SIDGONDA KHOT, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCE: AGRIL., R/O. SHINGE KODI, KODANI, TAL. NIPANI-591237. 13. ANAPPA RANGA KHOT, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. 14. SRI. PRAMOD RANGA KHOT, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCO: AGRIL., R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. 15. SUMATI PRAKASH HELATE, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. 16. SAKHUBAI DHANAJI KHOT, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCCP: AGRIL. & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HANABARWADI, TAL. BHUDARGAD, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416001. 17. VITTHAL ANNAPPA KHOT, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 18. GOPAL ANAPPA KHOT, AGE. 35 YEAS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KODANI, TAL. CHIKODI-591201. KASHIBAI GUNDU KHOT, SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.RS. 19. SOU. SULABAI W/O. GOPAL KHOT, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. OLD CHANDUR ROAD, BARGE MALA, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, ICHALAKARANJI, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416001. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 20. SONABAI JANU PATIL, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK & AGRIL., R/O. BALIKARE, TAL. KAGAL, DIST. KOLHAPUR-416001. 21. SMT. KAMAL SIDDU KHOT, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KODANI, TAL. NIPANI-591237. 22. SHAKUNTALA SADASHIV KAGALE, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KURLI, TAL. NIPANI-591237. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06/01/2026 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NIPPANI IN O.S. NO.129/2017 IN SO FAR AS I.A.NO-39 (THEREBY REJECTING THE I.A NO- 39 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W 151 OF CPC) VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A NO- 39 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.129/ 2017 dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nipani (for short ‘the Trial Court’) the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The suit is filed in the year 2004 seeking partition. After transfer, the same was renumbered as O.S.No.129/2017. The plaintiff now filed the present interlocutory application seeking amendment of the plaint. It is stated that, at the time of drafting the plaint, all the averments required are not correctly pleaded. The plaintiff has denied the Will in the plaint and the other requirements regarding the denial of the Will, but the same are not correctly mentioned in the earlier plaint. The amendment sought will clearly indicate regarding the correct denial of the Will. By the proposed amendment, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant and at the same time it is very much necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The Trial Court, by order impugned, had dismissed the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 application. It is stated that in this case, there is sufficient material on record pleaded by the present plaintiff in the plaint paras. It is stated that the Trial Court observed that there are no proper pleadings in the plaint about the denial of Will and regarding the probating of the Will is concerned, it is submitted that the present plaintiff, who has filed this suit, has to stand on his own legs and cannot take benefit of any weakness in the defence. Moreover, the Will is given effect to and the name of Annappa was appearing as a manager of the joint family. PW2 clearly admits the arrangement accepted by the present plaintiff under the Will. The Trial Court has observed that in dealing with the prayer for amendment of pleadings, the Trial Court should avoid hyper-technical approach and adopt a liberal approach, but that does not bestow the applicant with an opportunity to introduce a new time-barred relief. As a general rule, the Court shall decline amendments, if a fresh suit on the new relief sought to be introduced, would be barred by limitation on the date of application. It is distinguished from the fact that where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred claim or cause of action, the prayer for amendment could be allowed even after - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 expiry of limitation. In the present case on hand, it is visibly evident that the applicant has failed to act carefully with persistent attention, application and efforts to showcase his exercise of due diligence to bring the instant application in time. 4. The Trial Court had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala and others1 and also in the case of L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd., v. Jardine Skinner and Co.,2 and also the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in case of Aisha v. State of Jammu & Kashmir3 and the Trial Court came to the conclusion that when the prayer for introducing new relief relating to declaration based on Will itself is declined, the facts touching the Will sought to be introduced in the body of the plaint also deserves to be rejected and accordingly, the same was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already made a factual basis of pleadings. He had relied on an order passed by a Co-ordinate 1 AIR 1964 SC 11 2 AIR 1957 SC 357 3 AIR 1978 J & K 34 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Muhammed Rafi and others v. Bande Nawaz and others dated 16.11.2025 arising out of W.P.No.108512/2025. Basing on this, it is submitted that the due diligence may not be looked into in all the matters amendment can be allowed though there is a delay. It is submitted that the order referred to supra comes to the rescue of the petitioner and the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He submits that in the light of the above order, the petitioner may be permitted to amend the pleadings. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner perused the material on record. After amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, after the commencement of the trial if the parties want to amend the pleadings, it has to be brought to the notice of the Court that in spite of due diligence such prayer could not be sought at the earliest. Now, in this petition, the relief that the petitioner seeking is that, the Will is illegal and void and also seeking a prayer to declare the Will dated 18.08.1958 as bogus, illegal, void and not enforceable under law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 7. The suit is filed in the year 2004. Then after transfer, it is re-numbered as suit of year 2017. The present application is I.A.No.39. The suit is pending from the last almost 22 years and after 22 years, the petitioner wants to amend the pleadings and also wants to amend the prayer claiming that the Will dated 18.08.1958 is not binding on the petitioner. This Court is not able to consider the order relied on by the petitioner in the light of the consistent view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. In this case, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings after 22 years for whatsoever reason, particularly in a case where he is seeking the amendment of the prayer that the Will is not binding on him. In that view of the matter, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1413 WP No. 100695 of 2026 (iii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months, considering the fact that the suit is pending from the last 22 years. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22