Karnataka High Court
Jalajakshi vs Gunavathi on 12 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20191
W.P. No.22965/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.22965/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. JALAJAKSHI
W/O LATE BALAKRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. DURGESH BHAT
S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
Digitally signed 3. DINKAR BHAT
by RUPA V S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA BHAT
Location: High AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
Court of
karnataka ALL ARE R/AT. 'ANANTHA NILAYA'
KINYA TALAPADY, DEVIPURA POST
MANGALURU-575 023.
4. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O RAVINDRA AJJITHAYA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/A KURIYA AT & POST
PUTTUR TALUK-574 210
MANGALURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADV.,)
AND:
1. GUNAVATHI
D/O LATE BALAKRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT TATTAJE HOUSE
KINYA POST
DEVINAGAR, TALAPADY
MANGALURU-575 023.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20191
W.P. No.22965/2019
HC-KAR
2. VEDAVYASA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT. SRINGERI MUTT
KOTEKAR POST-575 023
MANGLAURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADV., FOR R1
V/O/DTD:12.08.2022, PETITION AGAINST R2 IS DISMISSED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 09.04.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU ON I.A.NO.13 IN
O.S.NO.187/2014 VIDE ANNX-'G' AND BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE
I.A.NO.13 VIDE ANNX-'E' FILED BY THE R-1 & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari by
quashing the impugned order dated 09.04.2019
passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Mangaluru on I.A.No.13 in O.S. No.187/2014
vide Annexure-G and be pleased to dismiss the
I.A.No.13 vide Annexure-E filed by the first
respondent.
ii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit to grant under the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. Heard.
NC: 2025:KHC:20191
HC-KAR
3. Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioners are the defendants in
O.S.No.187/2014 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Mangaluru, D.K. (for short, 'trial Court'). The said suit came to
be filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff and the trial Court decreed
the suit by granting 1/6th share to respondent No.1 in the suit
schedule properties. It is further submitted that the judgment
and decree of the trial Court was assailed by the petitioners in
R.A.No.32/2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Mangaluru
(for short, 'Appellate Court') and the appellate Court has set
aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.187/2014, framed an
additional issue and the matter was remanded back to the trial
Court to record evidence on the additional issue. It is also
submitted that after remanding of the matter, respondent No.1-
plaintiff has filed an application seeking amendment of the
plaint, which came to be allowed by the trial Court under the
impugned order. It is contended that the appellate Court has
directed to record the evidence on the additional issue and
decide the case on merits and not to amend the plaint. It is
further contended that the amendment sought by respondent
No.1-plaintiff would change the nature of the relief sought in the
NC: 2025:KHC:20191
HC-KAR
plaint and the trial Court ought to have rejected the said
application. However, the trial Court without assigning any
proper reasons, allowed the said application. Hence, he seeks to
allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and by
rejecting the application for amendment.
4. Per contra, Smt.Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for
the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial
Court and seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and
perused the material available on record.
6. The pleading and material available on record
indicate that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed
O.S.No.187/2014 for partition and separate possession of 1/6th
share in the plaint schedule property. The suit came to be
decreed vide judgment dated 26.04.2017, wherein the trial
Court has granted a decree in favour of respondent No.1 holding
that respondent No.1 is entitled for partition and separate
possession of her 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property by
metes and bounds. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed the
appeal in R.A.No.32/2017. The appellate Court vide judgment
NC: 2025:KHC:20191
HC-KAR
dated 19.04.2018 set aside the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.187/2014 dated 26.04.2017. The appellate Court has
framed the additional issue, which reads as under:
"Whether plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is the
daughter of late Balakrishna Bhat?"
7. The appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial
Court to record the evidence on the additional issue and hear
the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both the sides
without any influence of the observations made in the body of
the said Judgment. After remanding, respondent No.1-plaintiff
has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151
of CPC seeking for amendment of the body of the plaint, by
insertion of para Nos.2(a) and 2(b). The aforesaid amendment
was opposed by the petitioners herein by way of objections
contending that the amendment cannot be allowed, which would
change the nature of the suit. The trial Court considering the
submissions, recorded the finding that those amendments are
necessary to address the additional issue framed by the
appellate Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:20191
HC-KAR
8. I have meticulously gone through the amendment
sought. The amendment is nothing but the respondent No.1-
plaintiff intends to prove that she is the daughter of late
Balakrishna Bhat. Without the aforesaid pleading there cannot
be any proper adjudication on the additional issue framed by the
appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2017. The amendment sought
would not change the nature of the suit nor would it cause any
prejudice to the petitioner. It is always open for the petitioner
to file an additional written statement to the aforesaid
amendment. It is trite law that mere allowing of the amendment
of pleading is not amounting to decreeing of the suit. Hence, I
am of the considered view that the trial Court is fully justified in
allowing the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff.
Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
order in this petition. The petition is devoid of merits,
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2022
would not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
