- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4862 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PREMALEELA K W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT. MELAJIPURA VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK BADANAGUPPE CHAMARAJANAGAR 571313 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAJWAL ARADHYA FOR SRI S KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT RENUKA W/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA, D/O. SUBBAPPADEVARU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK KADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR 571313. 2. SMT. NAGAMANI W/O. G.G. BASAVANNA, D/O. SUBBAPPADEVARU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 GOWDAHALLI VILLAGE, YELANDURU TALUK 571441 3. SRI. BASAVANNA S/O. SIDDAPPA @ KULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT HARADANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR 571127 4. SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O. SRIKANTH, D/O. BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 404, 3RD FLOOR, VIJAYALAKSHMI ENCLAVE APARTMENT, DUBASI PALYA, BENGALURU 560-060 5. SMT. SUNITHA W/O. LATE SHAMBHULINGAPPA, D/O. LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVATHI VILLAGE, SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI. CHAMARAJANAGAR 571115 6. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. NAGARAJAPPA, D/O. LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONANURU VILLAGE, KAVALENDE HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK MYSORE 571312 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 7. SMT. JYOTHI W/O. SRIKANTAPRASAD, D/O. LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANUMANAPURA VILLAGE, KAVALANDE HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK NANJANAGUDU TALUK MYSORE 571312 8. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERS KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD METAGALLI, KRS ROAD, MYSORE CITY 570-016 …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 20.01.2026 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHAMARAJANAGARA ALLOWING I.A.NO.5 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS THEREIN UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC PROCEDURE 1908 PRODUCED AT ANX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.40/2022 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagara is directed against the impugned order dated 20.01.2026, whereby the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial Court as hereunder: "ORDER ON I.A. NO.V The applicants/plaintiffs have filed IA No.V under order 6 rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC for permit them to amend the name of plaintiff No.1 and their father in the cause title of the plaint. 2a. In the accompanying affidavit of IA No.V, the applicants/plaintiffs have stated that at the time of filing of the suit, they have failed to mention the another name of their father and also plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 has been called by her family members and others as Smt. Renuka. But, in her school records, her name is recorded as Mahadevamma. The plaintiff No.1 did not continue her education and she married at an early stage. As such, she knew about her name mentioned in the school records. Further, the defendants denied their relationship. They obtained the school documents and found the names that were sought to be amended. Their father was commonly called by everybody as Subbedevaru by shortening the name Subbappadevaru. Hence, in many documents, their father name is mentioned as Subbedevaru. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 2b. The applicants/plaintiffs have further stated that they were unaware that their father was called as Subbedevaru and they did not mention the same in the plaint and they have not produced the documents in this regard. But, the proposed amends are very essential to prove their case. The proposed amendment does not amounts to withdrawal of admission infavour of the defendants. The proposed amendment does not amounts to introduction of new case. The proposed amendment is necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. On these grounds, they pray to allow the IA No.V. 3. On the other hand, the opponents/defendants have filed objection to IA No.V. In the objection, the opponents/defendants have contended that the averments made in the affidavit of IA No.V are not correct and maintainable. There were no valid, legal and acceptable grounds to allow the IA No.V. The plaintiffs have filed this IA No.V only to cause inconvenience and to harass them. They have already filed written statement and recorded the evidence of plaintiffs. As such, at this stage, the IA No.V filed by the applicants/plaintiffs is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have filed IA No.V only to drag on the proceedings. On these grounds, they pray to reject the IA No.V. 4. Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs and opponents/ defendants. Perused the documents available on record. 5. After hearing the arguments, the points that arise for my consideration are as follows: POINTS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 1. Whether the applicants/plaintiffs have made out sufficient and reasonable grounds to allow the IA No. V? 2. What order? 6. My findings to the points are as follows: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:- R E A S O N S 7. Point No.1: On perusal of petition, it is noticed that the applicants/plaintiffs have filed this suit for seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. On perusal of order sheet, it is noticed that the plaintiffs have already adduced their oral evidence by producing the documentary evidence in respect of suit schedule properties. During the course of cross-examination, four documents got marked as Ex.D1 to 4 through confrontation. But, the defendants have not recorded their evidence. Further more, the proposed amendment is only to insert the name of another name of plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff No.1 and 2. As such, the proposed amendment does not change the nature of suit, cause of action and it will not introduce a new facts. If, the plaintiffs are permitted to amend the plaint as prayed in the IA No.V, there is no harm or injustice will be caused to the opponents/defendants. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the applicants/plaintiffs have made out sufficient and reasonable grounds to allow the IA No.V. Accordingly, this court answer the Point No.1 in the Affirmative. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 8. Point No.2: In view of my answers given on the above points, this court proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A. No.V filed by the applicants/plaintiffs under order 6 rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC are hereby allowed. Accordingly, it is hereby directed the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to carry out necessary amendment as prayed in the IA No.V and to file amended plaint within 14 days from the date of this order." 2. Upon reconsideration, re-valuation, re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court came to the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment of the plaint was relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and the proposed amendment would not change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action. 3. In my considered opinion, the impugned order is in conformity and consonance with well settled principles of law governing amendments as enunciated in various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court including LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., reported in (2022) 17 SCC 1, Dinesh - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & ors. reported in 2024 INSC 726 and Mohammed Rafi Vs. Bande Nawaz in W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025. 4. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the interim order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Chhabi Nath and Ors [(2015) 5 SCC 423], K.P.Natarajan and Ors. v. Muthalammal and Ors [AIR 2021 SC 3443] and Mohd. Ali v. V.Jaya [(2022) 10 SCC 477]. 4. In the result, the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner and other defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. iii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate application - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9071 WP No. 4862 of 2026 which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 33