Writ Petition No. 14338 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 14338 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PUTTA NARASAIAH AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKA NARASAIAH R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. GANGAMMA AGED 63 YEARS W/O LATE NAGARAJU R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060. 3. SRI ANNAYAPPA C., AGED 61 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKA NARASAIAH R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060. 4. SRI DEVANARASAIAH AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKA NARASAIAH Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025 …PETITIONERS HC-KAR R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060. (BY SRI RAGHU PRASAD B.S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NAGARATHANAMMA AGED 40 YEARS D/O NAGARAJU R/AT BYLAKONENAHALLI DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 2. SRI DHANANJAYA AGED 37 YEARS S/O NAGARAJU C., R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060. 3. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.06.2022 PASSED ON IA NO. 5 IN OS 759/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE–F AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners-defendant Nos.1(a), 3 to 5 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order passed by the concerned Court on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.759/2020 whereby, the concerned Court allows the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard Sri.B.S.Raghuprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: (a) A suit in O.S.No.759/2020 is preferred seeking partition and separate possession. After service of notice, it transpires that the defendants-petitioners have appeared and filed their Written Statement denying the plaint averments. After the pleadings were complete, the concerned Court framed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025 HC-KAR issues and matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence. At the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff files an application in I.A.No.5 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint including a new property as Schedule 'F' bearing Khata No.93/93. (b) The defendants filed their objections to the application contending that after lapse of four years of institution of the suit, an amendment is filed and the same is allowed. Notwithstanding the objections, it transpires that the concerned Court allows the application filed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the defendants are at the doors of this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- defendants would reiterate the objections filed before the concerned Court contending that the concerned Court could not have allowed the application seeking amendment of the plaint after a lapse of four years and framing of issues by the concerned Court. He would submit that the nature of the suit does change with the amended plaint. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025 HC-KAR 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material on record. 6. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. 7. What has driven the defendants before this Court is allowing of an application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint by inclusion of a particular property in a suit for partition. The concerned Court by its order dated 24.10.2024 allows the application by the following order: "OS. 759/2020 Called out again in second session. Counsel for Plaintiff present. Defendant side absent. Heard the counsel on IA No.5. The Plaintiff has filed IA No.5 U/o.6 Rule 17 of CPC to add schedule-F property and schedule 6 property with khatha No.93/3. The learned counsel has contended that, initially he has filed the suit including the said property. Due to office objection that documents have not produced. He has deleted the same property and now, the Plaintiff has obtained the document and she wants to insert the said property and para. The Plaintiff has re-iterated the said contents in affidavit. Defendant No.2 and 3 have filed objection. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025 HC-KAR Defendant No.2 has contended that, after lapse of 5 years the IA is allowed and proposed amendments are not necessary and IA is not maintainable. Defendant- No.3 has taken contention that the proposed property allotted to his share and it is his self acquired property and IA is not maintainable. Admittedly, evidence not commenced. When posted for Plaintiff evidence, the Plaintiff has filed this IA. Whether the proposed property is self acquired property of defendant No.3 or not requires full fledged trail. As the Plaintiff had earlier deleted the property and now wants to implead the property on the basis of documents, I am of the opinion that, the objections are not sustainable. The proposed amendments are necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. Hence, the IA No.5 filed by the Plaintiff U/o.6 Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC on 11.06.2024 is hereby allowed. The Plaintiff is permitted to carryout the amendment as per IA within 15 days. For compliance and amended plaint by 05.12.2024." The concerned Court holds that in a suit for partition, all the properties that belong to the family will have to be considered. Though the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence, issue whether the proposed property was a self-acquired property of the 3rd defendant or otherwise will have to be considered at the trial. It is also noticed that the plaintiff had earlier made this property a part of the suit, deleted it and now again wanted to bring it in. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court does not suffer from any perversity for this Court to entertain - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025 HC-KAR the subject petition and stall further trial in O.S.No.759/2020. While it is true that once the issues are framed and the matter progresses to a large extent, applications of this kind should not be permitted as that would only be to protract the proceedings. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, as the property was already a part of the suit, deleted and now being bought back, there is no warrant of interference at the hands of this Court. The petition lacking in merits, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54