The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21237 W.P. No.4405/2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4405/2020 (GM-CPC) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka BETWEEN: SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE M.V. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. MUDDALAHALLI VILLAGE MURUGAMALLA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. (BY SRI. SRINATH P, ADV.,) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI. SUDHAKAR REDDY S/O LATE T.C. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE T.C. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 3. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE T.C. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 4. SRI. CHOWDA REDDY S/O LATE NAREPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 5. SRI. VENKATARAMA REDDY S/O LATE NAREPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21237 W.P. No.4405/2020 HC-KAR 6. SRI. KRISHNA REDY S/O LATE NAREPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563135. 7. SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O PAPI REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O AVALAKUPPA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563135. 8. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O SHEEGAPALLI VILLAGE RONUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563135. 9. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O MADARANKAPALLI VILLAGE NELAVANKI HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563135. 10. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O R.THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE RONUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563135. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21237 W.P. No.4405/2020 HC-KAR 11. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O RAYAPPA R/O GUDEDU VILLAGE NELAVANKI HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563135. 12. SRI. JAYARAREDDY S/O NAREPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O ROYALPADU VILLAGE AND POST ROYAL PADU HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563135. (BY SRI. S.N. SAMEER, ADV., FOR R1 & R5 R2, R3 TO R12 ARE SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.01.2020 IN O.S.NO.198 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRINIVASAPUR ON INTERIM APPLICATION (I.A.NO.6) U/O VI RULE 17 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC AS FOUND AT ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE INTERIM APPLICATION (I.A.NO.6) UNDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF U/O VI RULE 7 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC IN O.S.NO.198 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRINIVASAPUR & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21237 W.P. No.4405/2020 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "a) Quash the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 in O.S.No.198/2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at srinivasapur on interim application (I.A.No.6) u/o VI Rule 17 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC as found at Annexure-A interim application and consequently to allow the (I.A.No.6) under filed by the petitioner/plaintiff u/o VI Rule 7 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC in O.S.No.198 of 2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at srinivasapur. b) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Sri.Srinath P., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the respondents and in the said suit, he has filed an application in I.A.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint. It is submitted that the amendment sought is to insert certain factual aspects which have taken place after filing of the suit. It is further submitted that after the death of the father of the petitioner, khata of 'B' schedule property has been incorporated by the Grama Panchayat in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner intends to incorporate the said aspect in the plaint; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21237 W.P. No.4405/2020 HC-KAR however, the trial Court, without appreciating the same, only on the ground that the application was filed belatedly, rejected the said application. It is also submitted that bringing such an amendment would not change the nature of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the other side. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.S.N.Sameer, learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the proposed amendment, though, may not change the nature of the suit, but it is not required to be brought on record as it has no bearing on adjudicating the suit between the parties. It is submitted that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the application was filed belatedly and rejected the same and the said order does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 5 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21237 W.P. No.4405/2020 HC-KAR have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. 5. Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.198/2013 against the respondents seeking prayer to declare that the petitioner's title over the suit schedule properties holding that they are ancestral properties, further to declare that the registered sale deed dated 05.08.1996 executed in the name of Nareppa and another sale deed dated 05.08.1981 in the name of T.C.Venkataswamy by the father of the petitioner-plaintiff are not binding on the petitioner to the extent of her share and other prayers. 6. The material on record indicates that the parties have adduced the evidence and thereafter an application in I.A.No.6 was filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to incorporate certain factual aspects. The proposed insertion in the plaint reads as follows: PROPOSED AMENDMENT "1. Insert the following paragraph as 12a) That the plaintiff's name has been incorporated in the katha of "B" schedule property by grama panchyath Hodli on the basis of pavathi varas after the death of her father Erappareddy. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21237 W.P. No.4405/2020 HC-KAR And the process of "E" suttu katha is also recommended in the name of the plaintiff before concerned authorities and it is authenticatedly being incorporated in her because the said property was fell to the share of her father through the "B" schedule as 4th item." 7. The aforesaid amendment sought is, admittedly, an event which has taken place after filing of the suit. The petitioner intends to show that the khata of 'B' schedule property has been effected in her name by the Grama Panchayat. However, the trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the matter is posted for arguments. Keeping in mind the principles with regard to amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, I am of the considered opinion that if the proposed amendment is allowed no prejudice would be caused to the other side and the proposed amendment would aid in deciding the controversy in the suit. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the application is filed after the completion of trial, hence, the application deserves to be allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- to the other side. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21237 W.P. No.4405/2020 HC-KAR
Decision
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 09.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.198/2013 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Srinivasapur, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the said I.A.No.VI is allowed subject to petitioner paying cost of Rs.2,000/- to respondent Nos.1 & 5. iii. Petitioner-plaintiff shall amend the plaint within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the trial Court. iv. The respondents-defendants are permitted to file additional written statement, if any. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56