- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.104251 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.104226 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) IN WP NO.104251/2022 BETWEEN: PRASHANT S/O. MANOHAR @ SHIDDLINGAPPA PALLED, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KASABA ONI, NARGUND, DISTRICT. GADAG-583212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O. SHANKRAPPA MYAGERI, (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S RESPONDENT NO.1-583212) SHARANAPPA A/F. SHANKRAPPA MYAGERI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT POST KOTUMACHAGI VILLAGE, TALUK/DISTRICT. GADAG-583212. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2022 MADE IN O.S. NO.84/2011 ON I.A.NO.15, PASSED BY HON’BLE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, GADAG AT ANNEXURE-F CONSEQUENTLY BY ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.15, FILED BY THE PETITIONER; AND B. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2026.02.19 12:32:56 +0000 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WP NO.104226/2022 BETWEEN: PRASHANT S/O. MANOHAR @ SHIDDLINGAPPA PALLED, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KASABA ONI, NARGUND, DISTRICT. GADAG-583212. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O. SHANKRAPPA MYAGERI (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S RESPONDENT-583212) SHARANAPPA @ SHANKRAPPA A/F. SHANKRAPPA MYAGERI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. AT POST KOTUMACHAGI VILLAGE, TALUK/DISTRICT. GADAG-583212. ...RESPONDENT (SOLE RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2022 MADE IN O.S.NO.84/2011 ON I.A.NO.16, PASSED BY ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, GADAG, AT ANNEXURE-F CONSEQUENTLY BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.16, FILED BY THE PETITIONER; AND B. ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.XV and XVI in O.S.No.84/2011 dated 15.09.2022 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court by filing WP.Nos.104251/2022 and 104226/2022 respectively. As the parties in both the cases are one and the same, this Court is disposing of these two writ petitions by way of a common order. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed O.S.No.84/2011 seeking declaration, injunction and recovery of possession. The suit is of the year 2011. When the evidence of both the sides is concluded and arguments are partly completed, at that juncture, these two applications are filed by the petitioner. 3. I.A.No.XV is filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 16 read with Sections 30 and 151 of CPC seeking issuance of interrogatory in the form of notice to defendant No.2 and for production of original Will dated 30.09.1990. I.A.No.XVI is filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to permit him to amend the plaint. In the pleadings, there is no averment with regard to the availability of the alleged original Will with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 defendant No.2. As such, the petitioner has filed these two applications. One application is to amend the pleading by incorporating that original Will is with defendant No.2 and the second is to produce the said original Will dated 30.09.1990. 4. The trial Court by order impugned had dismissed both I.A.Nos.XV and XVI. While dismissing I.A.No.XV, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiff has not made out grounds to allow the application. The original Will is dated 30.09.1990. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction and also for possession in respect to the suit schedule properties. After contesting the matter, the trial Court had decreed the suit, but the defendants have not cross examined the witnesses. Thereafter, the defendants preferred an appeal in R.A.No.16/2017 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag, and the same was allowed on 09.08.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to restore the original suit to its original number for fresh disposal in accordance with law from the stage of cross-examination of DW.2 and 3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 5. It is further observed that after remanding the matter back to the trial Court, the defendants have cross-examined the witnesses and case is posted for reply of arguments. At this stage, the plaintiff has come up with this application seeking production of document by issuing of notice to defendant No.2 and his advocate. The plaintiff has not stated anything about the Will deed is with defendant No.2. He has not pleaded in his plaint averments the original Will deed is in the custody of the defendants. The plaintiff nowhere in the plaint averments has stated about the custodian of the Will. After cross examination of witnesses, the plaintiff has filed this application. The plaintiff side evidence is closed and also the defendant side evidence is also closed and the plaintiff has advanced his arguments. Further, the counsel for the defendant has advanced the arguments and contended that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for the non production of original documents. The plaintiff in his affidavit has admitted that the attesting witness of the said document was also crossed examined. 6. It is observed that the defendants also led their evidence and cross examined and the case was posted for arguments. The suit is of the year 2011 and it is remanded - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 back to the trial Court in the year 2021. The plaintiff has kept mum and has not stated anything about the original Will which is in the custody of the defendant.No.2. It is upon the plaintiff to lead foundation with regard to leading of secondary evidence. But nowhere in the plaint he has laid foundation with regard to the original Will which is in the custody of defendant No.2. Further, he has not prayed for condonation of delay and accordingly, the trial Court had held that the plaintiff is not permitted to produce the document and also it is not necessary to issue interrogatory notice to defendant No.2 and his advocate for discovery as sought in the I.A.No.XV. The plaintiff has not assigned proper reasons to allow the application. 7. Further, on perusal of the application, it reveals that it is beyond his pleadings. The plaintiff is having knowledge about the case and if the application is allowed, it will cause prejudice to the defendants and the plaintiff has filed this application only to drag on the matter and to delay the proceedings. No single effort is made by the plaintiff after closing of both side evidence and he has come up with this application. Accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed I.A.No.XV. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 8. When it comes to I.A.No.XVI, where the petitioner has sought for amendment of the plaint, in this also he has not stated the reason as to why he is seeking the amendment when all these issues are in his knowledge and the trial Court had observed that if the application is allowed, it would cause prejudice and accordingly, dismissed the application. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that unless the document which is in the custody of the defendant is produced and unless the applications are allowed, it would cause great prejudice to the plaintiff. It is submitted that merely on technicalities the trial Court cannot reject the applications that are filed. He had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd and Anr1 arising out of Civil Appeal No.5909/2022 (arising out of SLP(C)No. 22443/2019) and he relied on paragraph No.70 of the judgment which reads thus: “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)” 10. Relying on this, it is submitted that as the petitioner cannot file a subsequent suit in view of the bar under Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications and it does not cause any prejudice to the other side. These aspects were not appreciated by the trial Court. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order needs to be set aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that these applications are only filed to cover up the latches and the trial Court had rightly considered all these aspects and dismissed the applications. 12. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There are two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.XV and XVI. I.A.No.XV is filed for issuance of interrogatory in the form of notice to defendant No.2 and production of original Will and I.A.No.XVI is filed seeking amendment of the plaint. The suit is of the year 2011. Earlier, the suit was decreed and the Appellate Court had remanded the matter back to the trial Court. After the remand, from the stage of cross-examination, the parties have led in their evidence, the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for argument. At that stage, these applications are filed. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no prejudice would be caused to the other side if this amendment is allowed and the production of original Will is very much necessary and if it is produced, the trial Court will be able to decide the disputes between the parties. In that regard, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. As far as the amendment of the pleadings is concerned, the timeline that is prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure is for the purpose of effectively adjudicating the disputes between the parties in a time bound manner. The party cannot seek amendment after the commencement of trial, unless it is stated that in spite of due diligence these facts were not brought to the notice of the trial Court. There are several judgments where Hon’ble Apex Court time and again held that the Courts cannot have a hyper technical approach while considering the application and at the same time another line of the judgment say that the belated applications cannot be entertained and also any amendment which is filed to cover up the latches on the part of the plaintiff will cause prejudice to the interest of the other side and it amounts to taking away the admissions and those are all not permissible. 14. In this case, all the facts which are stated are much prior to the year 2005, the Will itself is of the year 1990. It is also an admitted fact that the defendant has taken a plea that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1861 WP No. 104251 of 2022 C/W WP No. 104226 of 2022 unless the original document is on record, the plaintiff cannot raise all these aspects. After taking the clue from the said contentions, the present application is filed. If this application is allowed, it would definitely cause prejudice to the defendant and the trial Court had rightly considered and dismissed the applications. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no informity with the orders impugned. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, both WP.Nos.104251/2022 and 104226/2022 are dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69