- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:686 WP No. 105563 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.105563 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI GURUSIDDAYYA HIREMATH, PRESENTLY RENAMED, NOMINATED, RECOGNIZED, CALLED AND IDENTIFIED AS SRI. MA. NI. PRA. GURUSIDDA MAHASWAMIGALU, BIN GURU SANGANABASAVA SWAMIJI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PEETHADHIPATHI, KALMATHA GUTTAL AND PRABHUSWAMYMATH AGADI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND: KALMATHA GUTTALA, REPERSENTED BY (SELF DECLARED) SRI. MA. NI. PRA. PRABHUMAHASWAMIGALU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, GUTTALLA, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581108. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER ON IA NO.36 DATED 26.07.2024 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.2 IN O.S.NO.21/2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAVERI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘M’ AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION OR GRANT RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:686 WP No. 105563 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.36 in O.S.No.21/2010 dated 26.07.2024 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Haveri, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court. 2. The defendant No.2 had filed I.A.No.36 to change the name and address of defendant No.2 as per the application. The same was objected by the plaintiff stating that the application is not maintainable. The defendant No.2 relying on an alleged Will executed by defendant No.1 claims to be the uttaradhikari of the math and the plaintiff is disputing the same. Unless and until the same is proved, the name cannot be changed. 3. The trial Court had dismissed I.A.No.36 filed by defendant No.2. While dismissing the application, the trial Court had observed that as per Order 6 Rule 14-A of CPC, every pleading shall be accompanied by a statement in prescribed form regarding the address of the party. As per Sub-Rule 2, from time - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:686 WP No. 105563 of 2024 to time, the address can be changed. This provision was inserted to facilitate and quicken service of the processes of the Court and to prevent any contention of non-service. So, as per Order 6 Rule 14-A of CPC, it is necessary to provide the changed address. But by way of application, defendant No.2 wants to change his name also. This is not permissible under Order 6 Rule 14-A of CPC. Because under this Rule, only address of the party can be changed from time to time. Hence, the application filed by defendant No.2 is not maintainable as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14-A of CPC and accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that the defendant No.1 is no more and by virtue of the Will, the petitioner was made Peethadhipathi of the said math, as such, he wanted to change his name and the trial Court without considering the same had dismissed the petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that there is dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, who is the uttaradhikari of the math. Basing on a Will executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:686 WP No. 105563 of 2024 defendant No.2 wants to change his name and claim himself as the uttaradhikari of the math. It is submitted that in a way, the petitioner wants to be declared as the uttaradhikari of the math which cannot be permitted unless and until the pending suit is decided by the trial Court and the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. An application is filed under Order 6 Rule 14-A of the CPC seeking to change the address as well as the name. The trial Court considering the amended rules had held that the purpose of the amendment and the purport of Order 6 Rule 14-A of CPC are to facilitate and quicken the service of the processes and to inform the Court if there is any change of address. But Order 6 Rule 14-A does not permit the petitioner to change the name and apart from that, in the factual matrix of the case where the whole dispute is with regard to who is the uttaradhikari of the math, the petitioner/ defendant No.2 cannot be permitted to change his name and to say that he is the uttaradhikari of the math. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court had rightly considered and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:686 WP No. 105563 of 2024 dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the trial Court shall decide the suit on the merits of it, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50