Karnataka High Court
WP/27049/2026 of SRI K SHANKAR Vs SMT K P CHAMPAKAMALA DEVI on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010597572026 NC: 2026:KHC:51786 WP No. 27049 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. 27049 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. K. SHANKAR, S/O KEMPAIAH. M, AGED ABOUT 42
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. 27049 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. SHANKAR,
S/O KEMPAIAH. M,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/A SEEGEPALYA VILLAGE,
KAMBALU POST,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 123.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGESH S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT K P CHAMPAKAMALA DEVI
D/O LATE K.S. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/A NO.2413/A,17TH MAIN RAOD,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
2.
SRI.K.P. CHAMPAKADHAMA SWAMY
S/O LATE K.S.PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/A NO.291,1ST A MAIN ROAD,
2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
3.
SRI.K.P. RAMESH,
S/O LATE K.S.PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/ANO.1639,1ST CROSS,
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
RAMAMOHANAPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
4.
SRI.SACHIN. J
S/O SMT.K.P.NETHRAVATHI,
G/S/LATE.K.S.PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/A NO.1408,1ST N BLOCK,
RAJAINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
5.
SRI. K.P. RAGHUNANDAN,
S/O LATE K.S. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO. 15, 4TH CROSS,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
6.
SMT. K.P. VEENA
D/O LATE K.S.PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/A NO. 3319, 4TH CROSS,
GAYATHRINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560021
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN OLD NO.V.O.S.NO.77/2026 NOW RENUMBERED
AS PASSED BY IST ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA
IN O.S.NO.570/2026B. PASS ORDER AND QUASH OR SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:21.07.2026 PASSED IN
OLD NO.V.O.S.NO.77/2026 NOW RENUMBERED AS PASSED BY
IST
ADDL
SENIOR
CIVIL
JUDGE
NELAMANGALA
IN
O.S.NO.570/2026. VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND 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
This petition is filed impugning the order dated 21.07.2026 passed on I.A. No.4, 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.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the property bearing Kaneshumari No.163/3 is sought to be included as one of the items in the suit schedule property by way of amendment. It is submitted that, while passing orders on I.A. Nos.2 and 3 dated 21.07.2026, the trial Court has held that the petitioner is the owner of the said property and, accordingly, has declined to grant an order of injunction. 2.1 It is further submitted that, having recorded a finding that the property described as Item No.4 belongs to the petitioner, the proposed amendment and the prayer relating to the said property are impermissible.
3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
HC-KAR
4. The trial Court, having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the suit and the pleadings of both parties, has held that the amendment is required to be permitted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is further held that the contentions raised by both parties are required to be considered after a full-fledged trial.
5. It is also to be noted that the amendment has been sought on the basis of the documents produced along with the written statement and even before the commencement of recording of evidence. Mere permitting of the amendment to incorporate the pleadings and the prayer would not, by itself, prejudice the rights of the petitioner, as the amended pleadings would be subject to the evidence to be adduced in the course of the trial.
6. It is a settled position of law that an amendment relating to the dispute involved in the suit ought to be permitted, wherever necessary, to avoid prejudice to either party, prevent multiplicity of proceedings and facilitate comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court has rightly held that
HC-KAR
the amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.
7. The finding recorded by the trial Court while considering the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is only prima facie in nature and cannot be treated as conclusive.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28