Karnataka High Court
Saifansab S/O Ameensab Nadaf vs Rajesab S/O Ameensab Nadaf on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
WP No. 104788 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 104788 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SAIFANSAB S/O. AMEENSAB NADAF
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. JANATA PLOT,
BELAGAVI-RAICHUR ROAD,
KALADAGI, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT-587204.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJESAB S/O. AMEENSAB NADAF
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RETD.,
R/O. NISAR MADDI GALLI,
VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-582119.
2. SMT. BIYAMA
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
W/O. SAIDUSAB NADAF @ MADAKAVI,
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALADAGI, TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 204.
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.29 11:19:42
+0530
3. SMT. SHAHEENA W/O. IBRAHIM NADAF
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALADAGI, TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 204.
4. KHWAJAMAINUDDIN
D/O. SAIDUSAB NADAF @ MADAKAVI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALADAGI, TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 204.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
WP No. 104788 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. SMT. SHAMASADABI W/O. HUSAINSAB NADAF
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALADAGI, TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 204.
6. SMT. ASHABI
D/O. SAIDUSAB NADAF @ MADAKAVI,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
I.E., RESPONDENT NO. 2.
7. SMT. RAHEMATABI W/O. BADNESAB NADAF
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SECTOR NO. 33, NAVANAGAR,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587 103.
8. ABDULSAB S/O. AMEENSAB NADAF
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. GAZETTED,
R/O: SIDRAMESHWAR COLONY, GADDANKERI,
TQ: & DIST: BAGALKOT-587 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA S.SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. MALLIKARJUN JAGADISH BIDARI, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS
DATED 05.07.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, BAGALKOT ON IA NO. 11 AND 12 IN OS NO.
135/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
WP No. 104788 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to
5 and 7.
2. The petition is filed assailing the two orders dated
05.07.2025. Order at I.A. 11 is for amendment of the written
statement and I.A. No.12 is for permission to file written
statement to the counterclaim claim filed by defendant No.2.
3. The application is filed by defendant No.1 seeking
permission to file the written statement to the counter claim.
The suit is one for partition and separate possession. Both the
applications are rejected. Applications are filed at the stage of
final argument.
4. The defendant No.1 seeks to take a stand by way of
an amendment that the property at item No.1 is not the joint
property of defendants No.1 and 2. The defendant No.1 seeks
to withdraw the statement that it is the joint property of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
HC-KAR
defendants No.1 and 2 (as urged in the written statement) and
intends to incorporate the contention that it is the self acquired
property of defendant No.1.
5. It is to be noticed that, the case is already posted
for judgment and this amendment which is now sought seeks
to withdraw the admission in favour of defendant No.2. Under
these circumstances, the application to amend the written
statement to retract from the admission made in favour of
defendant No.2 cannot be permitted. However, it is also
required to be noticed that the proposed amendment also
seeks to incorporate a plea relating to alleged Jameenu Hakku
Bitta Patra. The relevant portion of proposed amendment in
paragraph No.10(a) reads as under:
".................. The document produced by the
plaintiffs styled as "Jameenugala Hakku Bittu Patra" is
created by the plaintiffs for the purpose of their false
claim and produced with malafide intention to cause
irreparable loss and injury to this defendant No.1."
6. In addition to that, two more contentions are raised
by way of amendment; (a) The suit is bad for non joinder of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
HC-KAR
necessary parties and (b) The suit is barred by limitation. As
far as the portion extracted above and 2 other amendments
noted in clauses (a) and (b) referred to above, the Court does
not find any impediment to allow the application to do justice to
the parties subject to the petitioner paying appropriate cost.
Remaining part of the proposed amendment has to be rejected
and as rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
7. As far as the permission to file written statement to
the counterclaim filed by defendant No.2 is concerned, it is
noticed that it is a suit for partition and separate possession,
and in such a suit, each parties can be considered as a plaintiff
and each party can claim share independently. That being the
position, if the defendant No.2 has filed a counterclaim, the
defendant No.1 should be permitted to file written statement to
the counterclaim.
8. As far as delay is concerned, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the
counterclaim filed by defendant No.2 was not served on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
HC-KAR
defendant No.1. Accepting the said plea, the defendant No.1 is
permitted to file the written statement. It is made clear that in
the written statement to be filed by defendant No.1, the
defendant No.1 shall not take any stand retracting the
admission in respect of item No.1 property wherein, he has
stated that item No.1 property is the joint family property of
defendants No.1 and No.2.
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned order at I.A.12 is set-aside.
(iii) I.A. No.11 is allowed in part, as indicated above.
(iv) As indicated above, I.A.12 is allowed and defendant
No.1 is permitted to file written statement to the
counterclaim.
(v) The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the
plaintiff and it is made clear that this Court has not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16525
HC-KAR
expressed any opinion on the nature of the
properties.
(vi) All contentions of the parties related to nature of
the properties are kept open.
(vii) Plaintiffs are permitted to file rejoinder if required.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
