- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10292 WP No. 3683 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3683 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI Y. K. RAMESH S/O. LATE KESHAVAMURTHY @ GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT YELECHAGAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 212 …PETITIONER (BY SRI V. R. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI BALAKRISHNA S/O. LATE KESHAVAMURTHY @ GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT YELECHAGAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 212 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P-202 OZONE GLETER, NEAR GALAXY UNDER-BRIDGE NARODA, ITI ROAD, AHMADABAD CITY KUBERNAGAR, AHMADABAD GUJARAT STATE-380 001 2. SMT. KAMALA W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT KATTE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211 Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10292 WP No. 3683 of 2026 3. SRI MANJUNATHA, S/O. LATE KESHAVAMURTHY @ GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS BHEL LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BEHIND POST OFFICE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 098 4. SMT. SUMA W/O. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT SAI KRISHNA RESIDENCY NO.255/A, ANKAPPA LAYOUT SUBRAMANYAPURA POST UTTRAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 061 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16/12/2025 ON I.A NO.5 IN O.S.NO.181/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HOLENARASIPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant No.1 in O.S No.181/2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10292 WP No. 3683 of 2026 JMFC, Holenarasipura, is directed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed in O.S No.181/2023, whereby the application in I.A. No.V filed by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff seeking correction of the description of Item No. 3 of the suit schedule properties by inserting Assessment No.84 instead of Assessment No.85 in the schedule to the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court by holding as hereunder: "ORDER ON I.A NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE" This application is filed by the applicant under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking to amend the plaint as stated in the application. The applicant has sought to amend the plaint as follows:- "zÁªÁzÀ µÉqÀÆå¯ï£ 3£Éà LlA £À°è ಅೆೆಂ £ÀA§gÀ£ÀÄß 85 JA§ÄzÀgÀ §zÀ¯ÁV 84 JAzÀÄ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVAiÀÄÆ" 2. In the affidavit annexed to the application, it is stated that, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of Partition and separate possession. Due to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10292 WP No. 3683 of 2026 typographical error while instituting the suit, the assessment number of item No.3 has been mentioned as 85. But, in the documents pertaining to item No.3, it has been shown as 84. The said mistake is not intentional. Therefore, it is necessary that the plaint has to be amended accordingly. If the application is not allowed the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and injury. On the other hand, the defendants will not be put to any hardship. Hence, it is prayed to allow the application. 3. The Defendant No.1 has filed objection to the application by contending that, the amendment is permissible only before the commencement of trial. But, in the present case the plaintiff is seeking the amendment after lapse of two years of institution of this suit. In the cross examination, the plaintiff has clearly admitted that, the property number stated in the plaint is correct. Therefore, said admission of the plaintiff cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the application. 4. On the basis of rival contentions, the following points arise for the consideration of this Court: "1. Whether the applicant has made out grounds to allow the application? 2. What order?" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10292 WP No. 3683 of 2026 5. The answer of this Court to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per final order for the following: REASONS 6. Point No.1: This suit is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession against the defendants. The applicant has sought proposed amendment to the plaint. Per contra, the defendants have objected the amendment by filing objections. 7. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued in same line with the contents of IA No.5. The counsel for the defendant No.1 has also argued in same line with the objection filed to IA No.5 and also relied upon decision in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Thamilnadu V/s Union of India reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4555 and decision in the case of Dinesh Goyel @ Pappu V/s. Suman Agarwal (Bindal). By relaying upon these decisions counsel for the defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the application. 8. It is one of the well settled principles of law that, the purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10292 WP No. 3683 of 2026 the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 9. When it is well settled that, courts while deciding the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should not adopt a hyper-technical approach and Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs and normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations, this court is of the view that, the application on hand also to be allowed. Moreover, if the application is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as sought, it will neither change the nature of the suit nor give raise to new cause of action. Since, the plaintiff is specifically contending that, the said mistake due to typographical error, the said contention prima-facie appears to be legitimate. That apart, heavy burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove all the contentions taken up by him. If the application is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to carry out the amendment as sought in the application, the defendants will also get opportunity to file additional written statement and to lead evidence. This court has perused the decisions relied upon by the defendant No.1. With due respect to the same, the said decisions are not applicable to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10292 WP No. 3683 of 2026 the facts and circumstances of this case in proving the contentions of defendant No.1. Therefore, by considering the pleadings, documents on record, contents of affidavit and objections filed, for the reasons stated supra, the applicant has made out grounds to allow the application. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 10. Point No. 2: For the reasons stated while discussing point No.1, this Court proceed to pass the following; O R D E R I.A.No.V filed by the applicant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is hereby allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as sought in the application. No order as to costs." 2. Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re- appreciation of the entire material record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court allowing amendment is in consonance / conformity with the principles governing amendment of pleadings as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another [(2022) 16 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10292 WP No. 3683 of 2026 SCC 1]; and in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. [2024 INSC 726] as well as this Court in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v. Bandenawaz and Others (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 1208 / W.P. No. 108512 of 2025). Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another. v. Chhabi Nath and Others [(2015) 5 SCC 423], K.P.Natarajan and Another. v. Muthalammal and Others [AIR 2021 SC 3443] and Mohamed Ali v. V.Jaya and Others [(2022) 10 SCC 477]. 3. The Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 31