Karnataka High Court
WP/21684/2022 of SMT. SUNITHA Vs SRI R GOPAL @ GOPALAPPA on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010498382022 NC: 2026:KHC:47865 WP No. 21684 of 2022 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. 21684 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUNITHA, D/O SRI R GOPALA @
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. 21684 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. SUNITHA,
D/O SRI R GOPALA @ GOPALAPPA,
W/O SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NAGARESHWARA -
NAAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
S R K NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
2.
SMT VANITHA,
D/O SRI R GOPALA @ GOPALAPPA,
W/O SRI N RAM ASHOK,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT 70/A, KEMPEGOWDA NILAYA,
O M S ROAD, OPP YELAHANKA-OLD TOWN,
BENGALURU.
PRESENTLY R/O NO.3, IST A-CROSS,
4TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR,
YALAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064.
3.
MRS SHWETHA,
D/O SRI R GOPALA @ GOPALAPPA,
W/O SRI RAGHAVENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by
ANNAPURNA G
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
4.
MRS. PUSHPA,
D/O SRI G GOPALA @ GOPALAPPA,
W/O SRI NANDISH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
5.
MRS. SMITHA,
D/O SRI R GOPAL @ GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
6.
MR PRASHANTH,
S/O SRI R GOPALA @ GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
SL.NOS.3 TO 6 ARE
R/AT NO.18/74, 12TH CROSS,
KOGILU CROSS, YELAHANKA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI R GOPAL @ GOPALAPPA,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18/74, 12TH CROSS,
KOGILU CROSS, YELAHANKA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
2.
SRI N T SAGAR,
S/O SRI SADANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.77, 3RD CROSS,
NANDIDURGA EXTENSION,
HC-KAR
NEAR JANATHA BAZAAR,
BENGALURU - 560 046.
3.
SRI K LOKESH,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NAGARESHWARA-
NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 077.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3
V/O DATED 09.11.2022,
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
OF
INDIA
PRAYING
TO-CALL
FOR
THE
RECORDS IN O.S.NO.6334/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-8) AND QUASH THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.9 DTD
21.09.2022 IN O.S.NO.6334/2015 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
VIDE
ANNEXURE-A
AND
CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW
THE
APPLICATION / I.A.NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W
SEC.151
OF
THE
CODE
OF
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
IN
O.S.NO.6334/2015
FILED
BY
THE
PLAINTIFFS
VIDE
ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,
HC-KAR
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 21.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.6334/2015 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8) (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short).
2. Heard Sri Basavaraju P., learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri B Keshava Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2; Sri K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3; and perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.6334/2015 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession and the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs. In
HC-KAR
the said suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application came to be filed after commencement of the trial. The trial Court, under the impugned order dated 21.09.2022, rejected the said application.
4. It is to be noticed that, by way of the proposed amendment, the petitioners are seeking to insert paragraph Nos.7(a) to 7(c) in the plaint. The gist of the proposed insertion is that the plaintiffs are contending that defendant No.1, who is the father of the plaintiffs, had no authority to execute the General Power of Attorney (for short, 'GPA') and based on the said GPA, defendant No.2 had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3.
5. It is required to be noticed that the petitioners, in the plaint, had already sought a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the petitioners. The said sale deed refers to the execution of the GPA by defendant No.1
HC-KAR
in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, nothing prevented the petitioners from seeking to incorporate the proposed pleadings at the time of filing of the plaint, despite having knowledge of the same. Hence, the proposed amendment insofar as insertion of paragraph Nos.7(a) to 7(c) is concerned, cannot be allowed.
6. Insofar as the proposed amendment to prayer- B of the plaint is concerned, the relief of declaration is restricted to Item No.5 of the suit schedule property. In my considered view, the said amendment would not cause any prejudice to the other side, as the relief is being restricted to Item No.5 of the suit schedule property. Hence, the said amendment requires to be allowed.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii) The impugned order dated 21.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.6334/2015 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions
HC-KAR
Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8), insofar as rejection of the application seeking amendment by insertion of paragraph Nos.7(a) to 7(c) in the plaint is concerned, is upheld. iii) The impugned order is modified and the application seeking amendment of the plaint is allowed only insofar as prayer-B is concerned. iv) The petitioners shall file the amended plaint within a period of three weeks. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25