- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:177 WP No. 109968 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.109968 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GOPALAPPA S/O. DAKAPPA VANAKI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAMATAGI, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDULSAB S/O. USAMANSAB KALABURGI, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SOGONDESHWARA NAGAR KAMATAGI, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587120. 2. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. SHRIMANTH KALAL, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SUNAGAR ONI, KAMATAGI, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587120. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2025 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND IN R.A.NO.17/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:177 WP No. 109968 of 2025 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 orders passed in I.A.No.3 in R.A.No.17/2022 dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, the plaintiff/respondent is before this Court. 2. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff in the suit had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The said suit came to be decreed. Against that, R.A.No.17/2022 was filed by the purchaser of the property. Thereafter, this I.A.No.3 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the appeal memo as mentioned in the application. By way of this amendment, what is sought to be introduced is that he did not file the written statement before the Trial Court and he wants the Court to remand the matter. The Appellate Court, by order impugned, has allowed the application. The Court had considered the scope of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and also what is the prejudice that would be caused to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:177 WP No. 109968 of 2025 the respondent if the application is allowed. The Appellate Court observed that the appellant/defendant wants to insert some facts in the appeal memo. What he wanted to insert is that he is a bona fide purchaser, but he has not filed a written statement and he wants the matter to be remanded. It is the contention of the plaintiff that it is barred by limitation and such a plea cannot be allowed. The court observed that whether the right of filing a written statement is barred by law or not, it has to be seen at the time of disposing of the appeal and not at this stage. In the case on hand, the appellant No.2 wants to seek the relief of remand and it cannot be denied to the appellant No.2. Further, if the appellant No.2 is not permitted to amend the appeal memo, then he will be put to untold hardship, which cannot be compensated in terms of money and on the other hand the respondent will not be put to any hardship. Accordingly, the Court has permitted the respondent to amend the appeal memo. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when he has not filed the written statement the Court cannot permit him to file the written statement and remand the matter and the Court cannot allow the respondent to amend the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:177 WP No. 109968 of 2025 appeal memo. The Court had failed to consider the scope of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and allowed the I.A.No.3 filed by the respondent herein. It is submitted that the order impugned needs to be set aside. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff. His suit for specific performance is decreed and against that an appeal is filed. Now by way of this application i.e., I.A.No.3, the respondent wants to amend the appeal memo by inserting that he didn’t file the written statement before the Trial Court and he wants the matter to be remanded. If the appeal memo is amended, it is not going to cause any hardship or prejudice to the petitioner for the reason whether he is entitled to file a written statement, whether the matter has to be remanded to the Trial Court are the issues that will be decided by the Court at a later stage after the parties adduce the evidence before the Court. By allowing the respondent to amend the appeal memo, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The Court had rightly considered all these aspects and rightly allowed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:177 WP No. 109968 of 2025 the application. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following. ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) This Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Appellate Court. iii) Whether the remand is necessary, Court will consider the same independently considering the respective contentions of the parties. iv) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32