Karnataka High Court
WP/11485/2023 of MRS GEETHA Vs MRS LAXMAMMA on 3 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010268732023 NC: 2026:KHC:47918 W.P. No.11485/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.11485/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. GEETHA W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWADA AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.11485/2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
MRS. GEETHA
W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWADA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT THIGALANAHALLI VILLAGE
BELLURU HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571418.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
MRS. LAXMAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVARAMEGOWDA
D/O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT THIGALANAHALLI VILLAGE
BELLURU HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571418.
2.
MRS. NANJAMMA @ GIRIJA
W/O LAXMANA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT M. KODIHALLI VILLAGE
BELLURU HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571418.
3.
MR. KEERTHY
S/O LATE KRISHNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIGALANAHALLI VILLAGE
BELLURU HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571418.
4.
MISS. ASHA
D/O LATE KRISHNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
THIGALANAHALLI VILLAGE
BELLURU HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK-571418.
5.
MRS. NAGAMMA
W/O BYEGOWDA
D/O RANGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE
NONAVINKERE HOBLI
TIPTURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572224.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J. ADV., FOR R1
V/O/DTD:06.06.2023 NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 ARE D/W)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 03.02.2023 IN O.S. NO.141/2018 PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT
NAGAMANGALA DISMISSING I.A. NO.4 (AS PER ANNEXURE-A).
CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW IA NO. 4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
IN O.S. NO.141/2018 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
JMFC
AT
NAGAMANGALA
(AS
PER
ANNEXURE-B & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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 challenging the order dated 03.02.2023 passed on IA.No.4 in OS.No.141/2018 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala (for short ‘the trial Court’).
2. Sri.Bhargava D. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed a detailed written statement, specifically contending that the suit was liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties. Immediately, after the commencement of trial, defendant No.1 filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement by introducing additional paragraph No.7(a) to the written statement. It is submitted that in the proposed amendment, defendant No.1 intends to state that the suit is liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the siblings of Sri.Rangegowda and
HC-KAR
their legal representatives have not been arrayed as parties to the suit. However, the trial Court rejected the same only on the ground of delay. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand1.
3. Sri.Sathisha D.J., learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports that order of the trial Court and seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in OS.No.141/2018 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in the suit and has filed a detailed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. In paragraph No.7 of the written statement, defendant No.1 has specifically pleaded that suit is liable to be rejected as other co-parceners of 1 (2008) 4 SCR 748
HC-KAR
the family were not joined in the suit, namely Sri.Gangadhara @ Sri.Balagagadhara, who is one of the siblings of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs adduced evidence and the matter was posed for defendants’ evidence. At that stage, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), seeking amendment of the written statement by incorporating paragraph No.7(a). The trial Court, under the impugned order rejected the said application.
5. The affidavit accompanying the said application indicates the reason that, at the time of filing of the written statement, defendant No.1 did not incorporate the proposed paragraph due to unavailability of some documents and information, and now she has got the information regarding the pedigree of the plaintiffs family and came to know that the grandfather of the plaintiffs had three children, who died long back, and that their LRs had not been arrayed as parties to the suit. The said
HC-KAR
explanation cannot be termed as due diligence. It is only ignorance and negligence of the defendant.
6. It is to be noticed that defendant No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the family. She cannot contend that she got the documents later and thereafter she came to know about the pedigree of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the amendment sought is at the stage of defendants’ evidence and the same is without due diligence. Hence, the trial Court has fully justified in rejecting the application. I do not find any error or perversity in the interim order calling for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE
ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30