MALLASHA vs HUSSAINI S/O DHANJYA DIED BY LRS PULLYA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10326
WP No. 203894 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030131992025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 203894 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MALLASHA S/O KASHINYA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
SAKYA S/O AMBYA
DIED BY LRS.
2. HEERABAI W/O LATE SAKYA @SANKRYA,
AGE:70 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSE HOLD.
3. BHIMSHA S/O LATE SAKYA @SANKRYA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. BANNYA S/O LATE SAKYA @SANKRYA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RAMU S/O AMBYA
DIED BY LRS,
5. BIJALIBAI W/O LATE RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
6. KISHAN S/O LATE RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
7. RAMESH S/O LATE RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10326
WP No. 203894 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030131992025
NEKYA S/O LACHYA,
DIED BY LRS.
8. HASLIBAI W/O NEKYA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
9. CHANDRAPPA S/O NEKYA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
10. DEVAPPA S/O NEKYA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
11. MOTYA S/O LACHYA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
12. BASAVARAJ S/O SIDRAM,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
13. BHIMSHA S/O DEEPLA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
ALL R/O HOSALLI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIR-585201.
SAKRYA S/O MATRA,
SINCE DIED BY LRS,
14. CHANDBAI W/O LATE SAKRYA,
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRI. & HOUSEHOLD.
15. RAJAPPA S/O LATE SAKRYA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
16. TEJAPPA S/O LATE SAKRYA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10326
WP No. 203894 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030131992025
17. SHARANAPPA S/O LATE SAKRYA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
ALL R/O. H.NO.3-17 HOSALLI DODDA TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585201.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DESHPANDE G. V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
HUSSAINI S/O DHANJYA
DIED BY LRS
PULLYA S/O HUSENI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
2. PEDDYA S/O HUSENI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
3. CHANDYA S/O HUSENI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
4. RAMU S/O HUSENI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
5. BEERYA S/O HUSENI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
6. MONAPPA S/O HUSENI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
7. BANU S/O HUSENI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
8. SOMLA S/O JAIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
9. LACHYA S/O SAKRYA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10326
WP No. 203894 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030131992025
10. DEVYA S/O KHANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
11. REVYA @SHIVAPPA S/O NEKYA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
12. NARASAPPA S/O DEEPLA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
13 PEMYA S/O GOPYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.
14. RAMU S/O POOMYA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
ALL ARE R/O R. HOSALLI TANDA,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585201
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK APTE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10;
V/O DTD. 09.01.2026 NOTICE TO R11 TO R14
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, I) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED 02.09.2025
PASSED ON I.A NO. 8 IN RA NO. 37/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIR THE
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANEXURE-G AND ALLOW
THE IA NO 8 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 TO AMEND THE
PLAINT IN OS NO. 37/2016. II) ISSUE ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10326
WP No. 203894 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030131992025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the
order dated 02.09.2025 passed on IA No.8 in RA
No.37/2021 by the Court of learned District and Sessions
Judge, Yadgir.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this
petition are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner filed an application in IA No.8
seeking permission for amendment to the plaint. In
support of the application, filed an affidavit contending
that, due to typographical mistake, the family pedigree of
the petitioners is not given and the same is necessary to
decide the real dispute between the parties. The said
application was opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 10 by
filing objections. The First Appellate Court, after hearing
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10326
WP No. 203894 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030131992025
the learned counsel for the parties, rejected the
application vide order dated 02.09.2025. Hence, this writ
petition.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
to 10.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the First Appellate Court, while rejecting the
application, has not assigned any reasons. The impugned
order passed by the First Appellate Court is without
application of mind. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 10 supported the impugned order and prays to
dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10326
WP No. 203894 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030131992025
7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed
an application in IA No.8 for amendment to the plaint on
the ground that there is a typographical error in the family
pedigree. The petitioners, in order to rectify the same and
to decide the real dispute between the parties, filed IA
No.8. The said application was opposed by respondent
Nos.1 to 10 contending that, the application filed by the
petitioners is not maintainable and the petitioners have
admitted in the course of cross-examination regarding the
relationship.
8. From perusal of the order passed by the First
Appellate Court, it discloses that the First Appellate Court
has not assigned any reasons for rejecting the application
except referring to proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned order passed by
the First Appellate Court is without application of mind and
on this ground alone itself, the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10326
WP No. 203894 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030131992025
9. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
i. The writ petition is ;
ii. The impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed
on IA No.8 in RA No.37/2021 by the First
set aside
Appellate Court is hereby ;
restored
iii. IA No.8 is hereby to its original
position;
iv. The First Appellate Court is directed to
re-consider IA No.8 along with the merits of the
matter and if the First Appellate Court is of the
opinion that IA No.8 needs to be allowed,
thereafter, pass an appropriate order and
provide an opportunity to the respondents to
file additional written statement, if any;
v. Pending IA(s) in this petition, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
PA | List No.: 2 Sl No.: 54 | CT:PK