MR B S RAMALINGEGOWDA vs SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 29809 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. B S RAMALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE B.L. SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT DODDANGADI BEEDI,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPUR TALUK-571101
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
W/O B.C. KRISHNA
D/O LATE B.L. SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT THYAGARAJAMOHALLA,
BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
2. SMT. REVANAMMA
SINCE DEAD
SMT. B.S. NAGARATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O LATE SHIVASHANKAREGOWDA,
D/O LATE B.L. SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT RANGASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
KASABA HOBLI,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK -571101
3. SMT. B.S. CHANDRIKA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O B.C. THIMMEGOWDA,
D/O LATE B L. SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT THYAGARAJAMOHALLA,
BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK -571101
4. SMT. B.S. SAVITHRI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O JAYARAMU
D/O LATE B.L. SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT DODDANAGADI BEEDI,
NEAR K.SRTC BUS STAND, BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
5. MR. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O KUNDAPPANA RAJEGOWDA,
R/AT HARAKERIMOHALLA BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
6. MR. BORALINGEGOWDA @ SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOOLEGOWDA,
R/AT MADEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK -571101
7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
W/O CHANNAPPA
R/AT HORAKERIMOHALLA,
BANNUR TOWN, T.NARASIPURA TALUK -571101
8. MR. MAHADEVU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O KUNDAPPANA RAJEGOWDA,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
R/AT HORAKERIMOHALLA, BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
9. MR. SURESHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
R/AT HORAKERIMOHALLA, BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
10. MR. KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O DASEGOWDA,
R/AT THYAGARAJAMOHALLA
BANNUR TOWN, T.NARASIPURA TALUK--571101
11. MR. B.S. SURENDRA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O GATTIGOWDARA SIDDEGOWDA
R/AT HORAKERIMOHALLA,
SRP ROAD BAJU, BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
12. SMT. SAKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O NAGEGOWDA,
R/AT YACHENAHALLI VILLAGE.
BANNUR HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK--571101
13. MR. R. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O HURULL NINGANNA DASEGOWDANA
RAMEGOWDA
R/AT HORAKERIMOHALLA, BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK -571101
14. MR. B.S. REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O M. SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT DANDINA ONI,
THYAGARAJAMOHALLA,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
15. SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
W/O RAMESH
R/AT HORAKERIMOHALLA
BANNUR TOWN, T.NARASIPURA TALUK -571101
16. MR. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O THORAHALLI PUTTALINGAPPA R/AT
HORAKERIMOHALLA, BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
17. MR. SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O MOTHERGOWDANA SIDDEGOWDA
R/AT HORAKERIMOHALLA BANNUR TOWN,
T. NARASIPURA TALUK -571101
18. GOVINDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
W/O LATE GOVINDAIAH,
19. MR. B.G. PRADEEP KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH
BOTH ARE R/AT GANAPARAMESHWARINAGARA,
HOSAKERI, BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK -571101
20. MR. SMT. B.S. RENUKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
W/O SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT DANDINA ONI,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
21. MR. ELIAS,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED KHASIM,
R/AT SUGAR FACTORY, MAKANAHALLI,
BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101
22. MR.RAVI,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O HURULI NINGANNA MUDDEGOWDA,
R/AT HORAKERIMOHALLA,
BANNUR TOWN,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.10.2026 NOTICE TO
R2 TO R22 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS W.P. IS FILED IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.09.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE T NARASIPURA IN O.S. NO. 77/2022
DISMISSING I.A. NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW I.A. NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed challenging the order dated
10.09.2026 passed on I.A. No.9, whereby the application filed
under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking amendment of the written statement, came to be
rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
amendment sought to the written statement is only for the
purpose of correcting typographical errors. It is further
submitted that even where the proposed amendment seeks to
introduce a new defence or substitute or alter a defence already
taken, including one inconsistent with the existing pleadings,
the same is required to be considered liberally.
2.1 It is contended that the proposed amendment is
necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the
suit. It is further submitted that any prejudice that may be
caused to the opposite party can be adequately compensated.
Per contra
3. , learned counsel for the respondents
submits that if the proposed amendment is permitted, it would
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
have the effect of withdrawing an express admission made in
the written statement. In the circumstances, it is contended
that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
5. The suit is instituted for partition and separate
possession. In the written statement filed on 05.01.2023, the
defendants have specifically pleaded that the plaint schedule
properties are ancestral joint family properties. Based on the
pleadings, issues have been framed and the suit has reached
the stage of the plaintiff's evidence.
6. The application for amendment is filed purportedly
to correct certain typographical errors. However, on
examination of the nature of the proposed amendments, it is
evident that the petitioner seeks to introduce a plea that the
suit schedule properties are not ancestral joint family
properties. Though the proposed amendment is presented as
one for grammatical corrections, in substance, it would alter
the entire nature of the defence.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
7. No doubt, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Usha Balashaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami, [(2007)
5 SCC 602] , a defendant may be permitted to introduce a new
ground of defence, substitute or alter an existing defence, or
even take an inconsistent plea in the written statement. The
principles governing amendments to the written statement are,
therefore, distinct from those applicable to amendments of the
plaint, particularly where the amendment seeks to introduce a
new cause of action. However, the permissibility of such an
amendment is subject to the requirements of the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
8. It is not in dispute that the application for
amendment was filed when the suit had reached the stage of
cross-examination of PW.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Basavaraj v. Indira and Others, [(2024) 3 SCC 705] , has
categorically held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC mandates that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after commencement of the trial unless the Court
arrives at a conclusion that, despite the exercise of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
commencement of the trial. It is further held that the burden
lies on the party seeking amendment, after commencement of
the trial, to establish that despite the exercise of due diligence,
the amendment could not have been sought earlier. The power
to amend pleadings is not a matter of right.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of
decisions, has reiterated that amendments to pleadings are
ordinarily to be permitted liberally where they are necessary for
the complete and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute.
The said principle has also been reiterated in Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited
& Anr. (Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022) . However, the
exercise of such power, particularly after commencement of the
trial, is subject to compliance with the statutory requirements
stipulated in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
10. A perusal of the application for amendment and the
affidavit filed in support thereof would indicate that there is no
averment explaining the exercise of due diligence or
demonstrating why the proposed amendment could not have
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60369
WP No. 29809 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010653412026
been sought before commencement of the trial. Thus, the
statutory requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of
the CPC remains unsatisfied, rendering the application liable to
be rejected.
11. Though the reasons assigned by the Trial Court may
not, by themselves, fully justify the conclusion arrived at, the
ultimate result does not warrant interference for the reasons
recorded hereinabove. No ground is made out to entertain this
petition.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed .
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16