Karnataka High Court
WP/30041/2026 of SMT.LAKSHMAMMA Vs SRI M.S. KRISHNA on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010659452026 NC: 2026:KHC:52975 WP No. 30041 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 30041 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA C/O. LATE R.S.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30041 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
C/O. LATE R.S. SIDDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
2.
SRI R.S. SUJENDRA
S/O. LATE R.S. SIDDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
3.
SRI R.S. SHYAM
S/O. LATE R.S. SIDDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.628,
9TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, VINAYA MARGA,
SIDDHARTHANAGAR, MYSURU CITY,
MYSURU. 570001
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI M.S. KRISHNA
S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT RAGI MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHINAKURULI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT. 571434
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 03-09-2026 PASSED IN O.S.NO.298/2021 BY
THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
SRIRANGAPATNA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 03.09.2026, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) came to be allowed, permitting amendment of the plaint.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the earlier suit was filed only for the relief of injunction and, subsequently, the plaint was sought to be amended to incorporate the relief of declaration. It is contended that, while permitting the amendment of the prayer, the trial Court has not made any observation with regard to the plea of limitation insofar as the declaratory reliefs are concerned.
HC-KAR
3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. It is a settled position of law that, when an amendment is permitted, any right accrued in favour of the other parties by virtue of the law of limitation is also required to be permitted to be raised in the suit. In that view of the matter, without interfering with the order impugned, it is observed that the petitioners are at liberty to raise the plea of limitation insofar as the amended prayer is concerned.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43