Karnataka High Court
WP/19860/2026 of G N PARUSHARAMA RAO Vs SMT SEETHA BAI on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010438222026 NC: 2026:KHC:48908 WP No. 19860 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 19860 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. G N PARUSHARAMA RAO S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 19860 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
G N PARUSHARAMA RAO
S/O NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O KEREBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLEHONNURU HOBLI,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
PIN CODE 577243.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI B. K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. SEETHA BAI,
W/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA @NAGENDRARAO
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
COOLIE AND AGRICULTURIST
2.
SANTHOSH N
S/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA
@NAGENDRARAO
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
COOLIE AND AGRICULTURIST
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
KEREBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLEHONNURU HOBLI,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK, PIN-577243.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT BHADRAVATHI ON IA NO. 4 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE
17 OF CPC IN OS NO.175/2024 DATED 25/04/2026 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
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
Heard Sri B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 25.04.2026 passed in O.S. No.175/2024 on I.A. No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, seeking amendment of the prayer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought in the application is to seek a declaration that the sale deed dated 18.04.2022 is void, and that such a prayer is not permissible unless the requisite court fee is paid on the market value.
HC-KAR
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The trial Court has considered the factum of non-payment of the court fee and has held that the requirement to pay the court fee would arise only after the amendment is allowed. Even otherwise, it is open to the petitioner to raise the contention regarding non-payment or insufficiency of the court fee in respect of the prayers sought to be introduced by way of amendment.
6. In the light of the above, the present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1