[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Chinnappa vs Smt Rajamma on 20 January, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2898
WP No. 9423 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.9423 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHINNAPPA
S/O LATE RAMABHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT MAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
AMBRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TERIKERE TALUK-577 547
REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER
SRI RAJIGOWDA,
S/O LATE BOMMARAYAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
GEETHA P G AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. SMT. RAJAMMA
KARNATAKA W/O. LATE KANNIAH BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKKAVALLI HOBLI,
TERIKERE TALUK-577 144.
2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE KANNIAH BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2898
WP No. 9423 of 2025
HC-KAR
LAKKAVALLI HOBLI,
TERIKERE TALUK-577 144.
3. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O. GURUSWAMY,
D/O. LATE KANNIAH BHOVI @ KANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDALIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK-577 228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANIKETHANA K.M., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/2017 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC., TERIKERE BY
ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY PLAINTIFFS IN IA NO.31
FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE
AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE IA NO.31
AT ANNEXURE-E., ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2898
WP No. 9423 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition by the sole defendant in O.S.No.66/2017 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Tarikere is directed
against the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 whereby the
application-I.A.No.31 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order
VI Rule 17 of CPC was allowed by the trial court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record indicates that the respondents/plaintiffs
instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for
declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule
immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the
petitioner/defendant, after completion of trial, the respondents filed
the instant application seeking amendment as hereunder:
"Add para no. 3(a) as "The 3rd plaintiff is the daughter
of Late. Kannaiah Bhovi with his 1st wife Kuppamma
and she married Guruswamy. After the death of 1st
wife Kuppamma, the father of 3rd plaintiff Kannaiah
bhovi has married 1st plaintiff Smt Rajamma and out
of their marriage the 2nd plaintiff Chandrashekar was
NC: 2026:KHC:2898
HC-KAR
born. During the life time of Kannaiah Bhovi, he has
not bequeathed his share of the property."
4. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner,
the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the
application as hereunder:
"O R D E R
The application filed at IA No.31 by the
plaintiffs under order VI rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of CPC
is hereby allowed on cost of Rs.1000/-.
The plaintiffs are permitted to carry out
amendment as sought for.
To carry out amendment and to file amended
plaint.
Call on:07.03.2025."
5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned
order will indicate that the same is in conformity with well settled
principles of law governing amendment of pleadings as held 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
NC: 2026:KHC:2898
HC-KAR
Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. [2024 INSC 726] as well as the recent
judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammadrafi & Another
vs. Bandenawaz & Others [W.P.No.108512/2025 DD
16.12.2025]. It is also pertinent to note that no prejudice can be
said to have been caused to the petitioner, who would be entitled
to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and
contest the suit on merits. Under these circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial
Court allowing the amendment cannot be said to contain any
illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to have occasioned
failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as
held by the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors v. Chhabi
Nath and Ors. [(2015) 5 SCC 423], K.P.Natarajan and Ors. vs.
Muthalammal and Ors [AIR 2021 SC 3443] and Mohd. Ali v.
V.Jaya [(2022) 10 SCC 477].
6. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of
Venkatamma Namasivayam (Since Dead by Lrs.) v. K.Anil
Kumar and Others [W.P.No.16411/2025 dated 08.07.2025] is
concerned, the said judgment was rendered in the facts and
NC: 2026:KHC:2898
HC-KAR
circumstances obtained in the said case and the said judgment
cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering
with the impugned order;
(ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file
additional written statement and take up all contentions
to the amended plaint;
(iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter
including the amended/additional pleadings are kept
open and no opinion is expressed on the same;
(iv) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
hkh.
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
