MALLIKARJUN vs KOTA NIRMALA AND ANR

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9566
WP No. 200052 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030001702024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.200052 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)



BETWEEN:

MALLIKARJUN
S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA THONTE,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MEENKERA VILLAGE,
TQ: HUMNABAD,
DIST: BIDAR-585 401.

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. KOTA NIRMALA
W/O LATE REDDAPPA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O BIDAR,
C/O GANPATHRAO KHUBA,
JANWADA ROAD,
NEAR WATER TANK, BIDAR,
NOW AT H.NO.1-1/19,
MOHAN NAGAR, SBH COLONY,
HYDERABAD T.S-500 004.

2. KOTA SUMAN









Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9566
WP No. 200052 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030001702024


S/O LATE REDDAPPA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O BIDAR,
C/O GANPATHRAO KHUBA,
JANWADA ROAD, NEAR WATER TANK,
BIDAR, NOW AT H.NO.1-1/19,
MOHAN NAGAR SBH COLONY,
HYDERABAD, T.S-500 004.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22-09-2023 PASSED IN RA NO.
58/2020 BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BASAVAKALYA, SITTING AT HUMNABAD, REJECTING
THE APPLICATION BEARING I.A. NO.IV SEEKING AMENDMENT
OF WRITTEN STATEMENT BY INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL
PLEADINGS AS AT ANNEXURE-F AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY IN
NATURE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION
AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9566
WP No. 200052 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030001702024


ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 22.09.2023 passed on I.A. No.IV in
R.A. No.58 of 2020 by the learned Second Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Basavakalyan, sitting at
Humanabad (for short, ‘ the First Appellate Court ’).

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.46
of 2016 for declaration, perpetual injunction and
rectification of revenue records. The
petitioner/defendant filed a written statement,
denying the averments made in the plaint and
sought for a counter-claim in O.S. No.46 of 2016.
The Trial Court decreed the suit with costs, however,
while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, the Trial
Court has not passed any order on the counter-claim
sought by the petitioner.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9566
WP No. 200052 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030001702024



4. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed in O.S. No.46 of 2016 referred an appeal in
R.A. No.58 of 2020.

5. The petitioner filed an application in I.A. No.IV
seeking to incorporate pleadings in the written
statement by way of amendment before the First
Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court rejected
I.A. No.IV by order dated 22.09.2023. Hence, this
writ petition.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
First Appellate Court has committed an error in
dismissing I.A. No.IV. He submits that the petitioner
had made out that there is no pleading in O.S. No.46
of 2016 with regard to the adverse possession. He
submits that generally the suit includes the whole
claim as per the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Hence,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9566
WP No. 200052 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030001702024


the First Appellate Court could have allowed the
application. On the contrary, the First Appellate Court
rejected the application. Hence, prays to allow the
writ petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned order and prays, to dismiss
the writ petition.

9. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.

10. The respondents filed a suit for declaration in O.S.
No.46 of 2016. The petitioner filed written statement
along with a counter-claim. The Trial Court, after full
pledged trial, decreed the suit of the respondents
with costs. While decreeing the suit, the Trial Court
did not record any findings on the counter-claim.

11. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed in O.S. No.46 of 2016, preferred an appeal in

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9566
WP No. 200052 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030001702024


R.A. No.58 of 2020. The petitioner filed an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to amend the written statement on
the ground that there is no pleading with regard to
the adverse possession in O.S. No.46 of 2016.

12. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an application for
amendment to the written statement after the
commencement of trial and the petitioner has not
stated in the affidavit that in spite of due diligence,
he could not raise the points/grounds in the original
pleadings.

13. The Trial Court should be liberal in entertaining an
application before commencement of trial. If an
application is filed after the commencement of trial,
the party must establish that in spite of due
diligence, he could not raise the grounds in the
original pleading. The First Appellate Court
considering the entire material on record, has rightly

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9566
WP No. 200052 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030001702024


rejected the application. I do not find any error in the
impugned order, as such, I decline to interfere with
the impugned order.

14. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed .


Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE

RK (Online)
CT:MH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52