- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2993 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI THIMMAPPA @ THIMMAAH SON OF LATE SRI. NARASIMHALAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIMINAKE COLONY, KUMBALAGUDU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 074. 2. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH, SON OF SRI. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIMINAKE COLONY, KUMBALAGUDU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 074. SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, PETITIONERS NO. 3 AND 4. 3. SMT. RANGAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SRI. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIMINAKE COLONY, KUMBALAGUDU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 074. 4. SRI. RAMA, SON OF LATE SRI. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIMINAKE COLONY, KUMBALAGUDU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 074. 5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, WIFE OF SRI. SENAPPA, DAUGHTER OF SRI. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODIYALA KARENAHALLI VILLAGE, KARENAHALLI POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 109. 6. SRI. LAKSHMANA, SON OF SRI. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIMINAKE COLONY, KUMBALAGUDU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 074. 7. SRI. VENKATESH, SON OF SRI. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIMINAKE COLONY, KUMBALAGUDU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 074. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.K.NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RAJAMMA WIFE OF SRI. PUTTAREVAIAH, DAUGHTER OF SRI. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIMINAKE COLONY, KUMBALAGUDU POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 074. …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 06.02.2026, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2025 (ANNEXURE A) PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.1511/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.4. THIS 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 defendant Nos.1, 2(a), 2(b), 3, 4 and 5 in O.S.No.1511/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 petitioners-defendants for partition and separate possession and for other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners- defendants, the Trail Court framed the issues and posted the matter for evidence of the plaintiff, at that stage, the plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional prayers and corresponding pleadings. The said application having been opposed by the defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under: Orders on IA No.IV filed Under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC The Advocate for plaintiff has filed this application to amend the plaint as per the proposed amendment. 2. In the accompanying affidavit, the plaintiff has sworn that she has filed the above suit for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants behind the back of the plaintiff and without her consent have got the khata of the survey numbers of the schedule property changed by getting phod and durasth and the said act is illegal and it amounts to change of nature of property. If the survey numbers of the schedule property is not properly brought before the court, the suit cannot be adjudicated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 effectively. In respect of some other properties in the schedule, the boundaries of the properties and in some items, the extent of the same is to be rectified, which is due to inadvertence. The evidence has not yet commenced and proposed amendment is very much necessary for proper adjudication of the case and does not change the nature of the suit in any manner and it is not opposed to law and thereby prays to allow the application. 3. The defendants have opposed the said application by denying the affidavit averments and submit that the proposed amendment are delayed. The plaintiff has filed the suit without proper due diligence and therefore, the proposed amendment deserves to be rejected and accordingly, prays to dismiss the application. 4. Heard the learned counsels. 5. The following Points arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the suit? 2. What Order? 6. Considering the application, objection and the plaint averments, my answer to the above points is as follows: Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per the final Order for the following: REASONS: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 Point No.1: The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession and by virtue of proposed amendment, the plaintiff intends to insert paragraph with respect to phod and durasth that had been conducted by the defendants without the consent of the plaintiff. Further, by virtue of the amendment, the plaintiff is also seeking compensation amount with interest at 12% per annum and new phodi survey numbers and correct boundaries to the suit schedule item numbers. 7. It is important to note that in the present case, evidence is not yet commenced. The application is filed before the trial. Further, as per proposed amendment the plaintiff is seeking to add new survey numbers and is giving correct boundaries. If the proposed amendment is not allowed, it is difficult for the court to effectively adjudicate the case of the plaintiff herein. Without proper identification and boundaries, the court cannot pass any orders. Under these will aid the court in circumstances, the proposed amendment effective adjudication of the case on merits. 8. Moreover by allowing the application no prejudice would be caused to defendants and it does not change the nature of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff has made out grounds to allow the application and hence, I answer the above Point in the Affirmative. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 Point No.2: For the reasons discussed supra, 1 proceed to pass the following: ORDER IA.No.4 filed by the Plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed. For amendment and amended plaint.” 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record including the proposed amendment and has come to the correct conclusion that the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. The Trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment will not change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order is in complete conformity/consonance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors -– AIR 2022 SC 4256 and Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 and also the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025 (Dharwad Bench). 6. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation is concerned, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar v Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C. Hanumanthappa v H.B. Shivakumar – (2016) 1 SCC 332, I am of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment has to be allowed by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to date of the suit but shall be reckoned from the date of filing the application, by leaving open the question of limitation to be decided by the Trial Court along with other issues involved in the suit. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7255 WP No. 2993 of 2026 (ii) It is made clear that the proposed amendment as allowed by the Trial Court shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned / considered from 24.03.2025 i.e., from the date on which I.A.No.IV was filed and the question/issue of limitation is kept/left open to be decided by the Trial Court. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation. (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16