Karnataka High Court
WP/13201/2026 of SMT. AMTHUR RAHAMAN SUMAIA Vs PAYAJUNNISHA on 7 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010264192026 NC: 2026:KHC:42177 WP No. 13201 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 13201 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. AMTHUR RAHAMAN SUMAIA W/O LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 13201 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. AMTHUR RAHAMAN SUMAIA
W/O LATE MOHAMMAD SAMIULLA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2.
SRI SAUD MALIK
S/O LATE MOHAMMAD SAMIULLA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
3.
SRI SAFI MALIK
S/O LATE MOHAMMAD SAMIULLA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
4.
UMME SADAF
D/O LATE MOHAMMAD SAMIULLA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
(ALL ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT
SRI MOHAMMED SAMIULLA)
ALL ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.1
VENKATAGIRIKOTE
CHINTAMANI TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AMRUTH CHOWDHARY S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
PAYAJUNNISHA
W/O LATE ABDUL WAHEED
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O VENKATAGIRIKOTE
CHINTAMANI TOWN-563125.
2.
MOHASEEN TAJ
D/O LATE ABDUL WAHEED
W/O CHAND PASHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O WARD NO.17
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN.
3.
NOOR ASMA
D/O LATE ABDUL WAHEED
W/O ANWAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O NO.644, WARD NO.17
FORT, CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN.
4.
WAHEEDA
D/O LATE ABDUL WAHEED
W/O SYED ZAMEER
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O UPPARAPETE
CHINTAMANI TALUK.
5.
FARIDA BHANU
D/O LATE ABDUL WAHEED
W/O RIZWAN AHMED
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O GULZAR MOHALLA
WARD NO.22
CHINTAMANI TOWN.
6.
TABASSUM
D/O LATE ABDUL WAHEED
W/O FAROOQ KHAN
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O VENKATAGIRIKOTE
CHINTAMANI TOWN.
(ALL ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF
SRI ABDUL WAHEED)
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF
PRL.
CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
JMFC
AT
CHINTAMANI
CHIKKABALLAPURA ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.363/2019 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
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
The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, Chikkaballapur, on IA.No.5 in O.S No.363/2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the respondents/plaintiffs have earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.245/2017 for declaration and injunction and an award was passed on 13.07.2019. Thereafter, the present suit filed in the year 2019. On 02.11.2022, the petitioners filed their
HC-KAR
written statement raising the issue of res judicata and limitation. On 05.09.2023, the respondents have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking the amendment of the plaint. The trial Court allowed the same by the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in the light of earlier settlement, the present suit is not maintainable. Hence, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and hence, the impugned order has to be set aside.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
5. If the suit is not maintainable, that is not the ground for the Court to allow the application that is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The petitioners have to come up before the Court with appropriate application. The grounds that are raised are not the grounds for the Court to dismiss the application. Except this ground, no other grounds are stated in the petition.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4