- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24114 W.P. No.7274/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.7274/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. MANJA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT KUMBARA STREET K R PETE TOWN-577133. 3. SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KODIYALA VILLAGE S R PATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571438. 4. SMT. S. PRABHA D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT KARASHODI VILLAGE MANDYA-571401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T. ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24114 W.P. No.7274/2022 AND: 1. GOVINDASWAMY S/O CHANNAKALAMBAIH GOWDR MAJOR SWEET MERCHANT R/AT MARIGUDI BEEDI K R PETE TOWN-577133. 2. VENKATESHA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. 3. PARAMESHA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. 4. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA MAJOR. RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.671 KUMBARA STREET K R PETE TOWN-577133. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH A.S. ADV., FOR R1 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD 7TH OF MARCH 2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.40 IN O.S.NO.70 OF 2003 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KR PETE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.40 AS PRAYED FOR & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24114 W.P. No.7274/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2022 passed on IA.No.40 in OS.No.70/2003 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pete (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Mahesh A.S., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that they are the owners of 'B' schedule property which is part of 'A' property and mandatory injunction against the defendants to remove the construction put up on 'B' schedule property and consequential relief of possession of the 'B' schedule property and a permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24114 W.P. No.7274/2022 an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs initially filed a suit for injunction. Later, they sought amendment of the plaint which came to be allowed and thereafter, the present reliefs referred supra are found in the plaint. Again, the plaintiffs filed another application seeking amendment of the plaint to 'remove alphabet B and substitute in its place A in line No.1 of the prayer (a) and to remove the word which is a part of the A schedule by putting a full stop at the end of property in line No.2 of the prayer (a)'. The said application was supported by an affidavit stating that the proposed amendment was sought due to a typographical error. The trial Court, after considering the rival submissions and taking note of the fact that the application was filed after the conclusion of the argument on the plaintiffs' side as well as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24114 W.P. No.7274/2022 defendants' side, and when the matter was posted for reply argument of the plaintiffs, rejected the application. 4. It is to be noticed that the learned counsel for the respondents is right in his submission that the present application appears to have been filed with an ulterior motive to drag on the proceedings as the initial application filed for amendment has already been allowed and pursuant to which additional prayers were sought and the parties have since adduced their evidence and now filing of application is an abuse of process of law. It is also to be noticed that the trial Court considering the fact that the application was filed at the fag end of the proceedings and without due diligence, rejected the application. It is further to be noticed that the trial Court once provided an opportunity to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, the present reliefs were introduced on the basis of such amendment. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to seek another amendment at this belated stage on the ground of typographical error. Such an action - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24114 W.P. No.7274/2022 would clearly amount to an abuse of process of law. I do not find any error in the impugned order of the trial Court calling for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35