Karnataka High Court
WP/9901/2023 of SMT. MAHADEVAMMA Vs SRI MAHADEVU on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010214532023 NC: 2026:KHC:47867 WP No. 9901 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9901 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE. SWAMY, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 9901 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
W/O LATE. SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O. BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK - 571 130
2.
SMT. JAYALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O. HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK - 570 008
3.
SMT. PADMA,
W/O SOMASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85, A.K. COLONY
KYATHAMARANAHALLI,
MYSORE - 570 019
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI MAHADEVU
S/O. KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by
ANNAPURNA G
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
SMT. PUTTAMANNI,
W/O. MAHADEVU,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
3.
SRI KUMAR,
S/O KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
4.
SMT. SUMITHRA,
W/O MAHADEVU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF
BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK - 571 130
5.
SRI SHIVAMURTHY,
S/O KARISIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PRESIDENT OF GRAMAPANCHAYATH,
BELAVADI VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK - 571 130
6.
SRI. SHIVAKUMARASWAMY,
S/O CHENNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O BELAVADI VILLAGE,
YELWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK - 571 130
7.
SRI BORAPPA,
S/O JOGI GOWDA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND CANARA BANK,
YELWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK - 571 130
HC-KAR
8.
SRI RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE CHIKKAHONNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND BASAVANAGUDI
BELAVADI VILALGE, YELWALA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK - 571 130
9.
SRI. KALAIAH,
S/O KALAKALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
10.
SMT. PUTTANIGOMMA,
W/O KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 10 ARE
R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILALGE,
NAGAVALA POST,
SLOWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 130
11.
SMT. CHIKKAKALAMMA,
W/O NINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT TOTADAMANE,
BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NAGAVALA POST, SLOWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 130
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. S. RUPESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11
SRI. SHIVAYOGI B. HALLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8
R1, R2, R3, R9, R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.01.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.928
OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC AT MYSORE IN DISMISSING THE IA
NO.V VIDE ANNX-D TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO AMEND
THE PLAINT IN OS NO.928 OF 2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO
CARRY OUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SOUGHT IN IA NO. V
I.E APPLICATION DATED 31.03.2022 FILED UNDER ORDER 6
RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE VIDE ANNX-C.
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
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 writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2023 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.928/2012 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short).
2. Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash H. V., learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Sri S. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.11; Sri Shivayogi B. Hallur, learned
HC-KAR
counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.928/2012 seeking the relief of declaration, partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.5 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking amendment of the plaint. A perusal of the application for amendment indicates that the plaintiffs seek to delete paragraph Nos.2 to 9 of the plaint and to insert proposed paragraphs in its place.
4. A perusal of the plaint indicates that, if paragraph Nos.2 to 9 are deleted, nothing remains in the pleadings. The plaintiffs intend to substitute the said paragraphs by incorporating new paragraphs, that too after commencement of the trial, which is impermissible. The proposed amendment is also sought without due diligence. Hence, the trial Court, vide order dated 12.01.2023, has rightly rejected the said application.
HC-KAR
5. It is also required to be noticed that, on an earlier occasion, the trial Court, vide order dated 07.02.2019, had allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.3 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC and permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, and nothing prevented the plaintiffs from seeking the present amendment in the earlier menioned application. In view of the same, the trial Court has rightly rejected I.A.No.5 seeking amendment of the plaint and the same does not call for any interference.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34