Karnataka High Court
WP/28142/2026 of SRI G SRINIVASA RANGAN Vs SMT SUJATHA on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010608242026 NC: 2026:KHC:51986 WP No. 28142 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 28142 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G SRINIVASA RANGAN AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28142 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI G SRINIVASA RANGAN
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
S/O. T.S. GOVINDARAJAN
R/AT YERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
TERAKANAMBI HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571127
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PALLAVA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT SUJATHA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O. T.R. VENKATARANGAN
R/AT D. NO. 3811, 6TH CROSS
1ST MAIN, GAYATHRI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560021
2.
SMT. SULOCHANA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
W/O. LATE PATTABHIRAMAN
R/AT YERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
TERAKANAMBI HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR
DISTRICT - 571127
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
SMT. SHUBHAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
W/O. SRI. S.N. RANGARAJU
D/O. T.S. GOVINDARAJAN
R/AT NO. 1154/2
VIDYARANYAPURAM
1ST CROSS, BEHIND SILK FACTORY
MYSURU-570008
4.
SMT. SUGUNA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
W/O. D. LOKANATH
D/O. T.S. GOVINDARAJAN
R/AT NO. 33, MARUTHI EXTENSION
GAYATHRI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560021
5.
SMT. VANI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
D/O. LATE PATTABHIRAMAN
R/AT YERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
TERAKANAMBI HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR
DISTRICT 571127
6.
SMT. RUPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O. LATE PATTABHIRAMAN6
C/O. SULOCHANA
R/AT YERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
TERAKANAMBI HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR
DISTRICT - 571127
7.
SRI. SHESHADRI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O. PATTABHIRAMAN
C/O. SULOCHANA
HC-KAR
R/AT YERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
TERAKANAMBI HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR
DISTRICT - 571127
8.
SMT. SHEELA
MAJOR
D/O. LATE PATTABHIRAMAN
C/O. SULOCHANA
R/AT YERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
TERAKANAMBI HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR
DISTRICT - 571127
9.
SRI. T. MAHADEVAPPA
MAJOR
S/O. BASAPPA @ MUGAPPA
R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
TERAKANAMBI HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR
DISTRICT-571227
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. N. MAHESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2026
NOTICE TO R2 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 20.08.2026 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, GUNDLUPET ON I.A. NO.21 IN O.S. NO. 42/2017 WHICH
IS GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
HC-KAR
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
Heard Sri. Pallava R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 20.08.2026 passed on I.A. No.21, whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking amendment of the written statement, has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the application seeking amendment of the written statement was filed during the remand proceedings and that the same is not permissible, as the proposed amendment would travel beyond the scope of the remand.
HC-KAR
5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.
6. The suit in O.S. No.42/2017 came to be filed for partition and separate possession. The petitioner preferred an appeal in R.A. No.70/2023, wherein the First Appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 10.03.2026, while entertaining the application filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking production of additional documents, set aside the judgment and decree and remitted the matter to the trial Court to consider the documents referred to in I.A. No.2, record oral and documentary evidence to that extent, and provide an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
7. The First Appellate Court remitted the matter to the trial Court for the limited purpose of recording evidence in respect of the additional documents produced along with I.A. No.2. In the remand proceedings, when the scope of remand is specific, an application seeking amendment of the written
HC-KAR
statement cannot be entertained. If the trial Court were to entertain the application for amendment, it would travel beyond the scope of the remand ordered by the First Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, the impugned order rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement is justified. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34