SRI. MADHUSUDHAN vs SMT. K.N. NEELAMMA @ LEELAVATHI WIFE OF THE LATE M. RAMAIAH (DEAD)., SMT. R. NAGAVENI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30845 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MADHUSUDHAN
SON OF THE LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2. SRI. CHETHAN
SON OF THE LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.3, G NO. 9TH STREET
JOUGYAPALYAM,
ULSOOR BANGALORE 560 008.
3. SMT. RATHNA
WIFE OF THE LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.12, 6TH CROSS LBS NAGAR
INDIRANAGAR, IST STAGE,
BANGALORE 560 038.
4.
SMT. DIVYA
WIFE OF MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
RESIDING AT NO.12, 6TH CROSS
LBS NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, IST STAGE
BANGALORE 560 038.
5.
SMT. SUNITHA
WIFE OF THE LATE MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO.5, 6TH STREET, JOUGYAPALYAM ULSOOR,
BANGALORE 560 008.
6. SRI. HARSHAVARDHANA
SON OF LATE MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
7.
KUM. LEKHANA
DAUGHTER OF THE LATE MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.5, 6TH STREET
JOUGYAPALYAM, ULSOOR,
BANGALORE 560 008.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T.R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. K.N. NEELAMMA @ LEELAVATHI
WIFE OF THE LATE M. RAMAIAH (DEAD).,
SMT. R. NAGAVENI
WIFE OF S. SUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.15, 'G'; NO.6TH STREET
JOGUPALYA, ULSOOR BANGALORE 560 008.
1.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
2. SRI. R. SRIDHAR
SON OF THE LATE M. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.435, 7TH CROSS
ARLIMARA ROAD, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE 560 043.
3. SRI. R. RAJU
SON OF LATE M. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.13, 4TH MAIN ROAD
7TH CROSS, RAMACHANDRAPPA LAYOUT
KARIYANNAPALYA, LINGARAJPURAM
BANGALORE - 560084.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADINARAYANA M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 18.09.2026, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-11) ON I.A.NO.X IN O.S.NO.5747/2014 AND
ETC,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed challenging the order dated
18.09.2026, whereby the application filed in I.A. No. 10 under
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to
be rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the amendment sought is to alter the share from 1/7th to
1/6th in view of the death of defendant No. 1 during the
pendency of the suit. Learned counsel further submits that such
alteration is sought on the basis of the gift deeds allegedly
executed by defendant No. 1. It is contended that the
amendment seeking to incorporate prayers relating to the gift
deeds is a consequence of the death of defendant No. 1.
2.1 It is further submitted that applications seeking
amendment of pleadings are to be construed liberally. Where
the subject matter of the proposed amendment could form the
subject matter of a fresh suit, the amendment ought to be
permitted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is also
contended that even if the reliefs sought by way of amendment
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
are likely to be barred by limitation, the amendment may
nevertheless be permitted, subject to the condition that
appropriate issues in that regard are framed and adjudicated.
2.2 In support of the above submissions, learned counsel
places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders
Private Limited and Another , rendered in Civil Appeal No.
5909 of 2022 , decided on 01.09.2022 .
Per contra
3. , learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos. 2 and 3, while supporting the impugned order, submits
that the gift deeds referred to in the amended prayers had
been pleaded in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1
during her lifetime, in the year 2014/2016. It is submitted that
the plaintiffs did not raise any dispute regarding the gift deeds
during the lifetime of defendant No. 1 and that such an attempt
has been made only after her death. Learned counsel further
submits that the impugned order is well-reasoned and does not
warrant interference by this Court.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the impugned order.
5. The petitioners herein instituted the suit for partition in
the year 2014. Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement in
the year 2016, referring to the gift deeds dated 09.06.2005,
05.05.2014 and 19.05.2014, which are the subject matter of
the proposed amendment. It is undisputed that defendant No.
1 died in the year 2020. The present application seeking
amendment was filed after commencement of the trial, when
the suit had reached the stage of final arguments.
6. The contention of the petitioners that, where the subject
matter of the proposed amendment could form the subject
matter of a fresh suit, the application for amendment ought to
be considered liberally, is an acceptable principle. The further
submission that an amendment cannot be rejected merely on
the ground of limitation, which would require adjudication
during the course of trial, is also acceptable. However, these
principles are subject to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
7. In the present case, the amendment has been sought
after commencement of the trial, when the suit had reached
the stage of final arguments. Undoubtedly, the proviso to Order
VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is attracted.
The proviso mandates that, after commencement of the trial,
an amendment cannot be permitted unless the Court comes to
the conclusion that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before commencement
of the trial.
8. For the purpose of examining whether the requirement of
the proviso has been satisfied, this Court has perused the
affidavit accompanying the application. The application merely
states that the amendment is necessary in view of the death of
defendant No. 1. However, a perusal of the written statement
filed by defendant No. 1 reveals that the gift deeds, which are
the subject matter of the proposed amendment, were referred
to therein. The petitioners, therefore, had the opportunity to
seek the amendment immediately after the written statement
was filed in the year 2016. However, no reasons have been
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
stated as to why the proposed amendment was not sought at
that stage.
9. Moreover, the amendment has been sought after the
death of defendant No. 1, who executed the gift deeds in
question, and when the suit had reached the stage of final
arguments.
10. 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 Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, places a restriction on entertaining applications for
amendment after commencement of the trial. Such an
application cannot be entertained unless the Court is satisfied
that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter earlier. It has been 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that
amendment of pleadings is not a matter of right. Though
amendments are ordinarily permitted to avoid multiplicity of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57274
WP No. 30845 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010674642026
litigation, the requirement of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must be independently
examined.
11. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Basavaraj (supra) and upon examination of
the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, this
Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to explain
why the proposed amendment could not have been sought
earlier despite the exercise of due diligence. The impugned
order has been passed upon consideration of the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
12. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned
order warranting interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18