MR. ILIYAS AHMED vs LATE. MOHAMED ANEEF,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 30510 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ILIYAS AHMED
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE. ABDHUL WAHAB SAB
2. MR. AMJAD AHMED
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE. ABDHUL WAHAB,
BOTH PARTIES ARE
R/AT DOOR NO. 193/11,
17 MAIN, WILSON GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560 027.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. HARINATH M.S..,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LATE. MOHAMED ANEEF,
SINCE DEAD, BY LRS,
MRS. AKTHAR JAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O LATE. MOHAMED ANEEF,
2. MR. MATEEN PASHA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE. MOHAMED ANEEF,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
3. MR. RAFIG PASHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O LATE. MOHAMED ANEET,
RESPONDENT No.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO 8, 6 CROSS,
SOMESHWARA NAGARA,
JAYANAGAR 1 BLOCK,
BENGALORE-560027.
4. MR. MOHAMED BAKASH @ ALLA BAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE MOHAMED HUSAIN,
R/AT KYALANUR VILLAGE,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT 563101.
5. MR. CHAN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE. SUNNE JAN,
R/AT KYALANUR CROSS,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101.
6. MR. ANWAR,
S/O LATE. SHAIK HYDAR,
SINCE DEAD, BY LRS.,
MRS. SHAMIMA UNNISA,
W/O LATE ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
7. MRS. THABREZ PASHA,
S/O LATE ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
8. MRS. NAZMA,
D/O LATE ANWAR,
W/O INTHIYAZ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
9. SRI. BABAJAN PASHA,
S/O LATE ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
10. MRS. NAZIMA,
D/O LATE ANWAR,
W/O AYUB PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS No. 6 TO 10 ARE
R/AT SOMESHWARA PALYA,
MULABAGAL TOWN-563131.
11. SMT. SHABEENA,
D/O LATE ANWAR,
W/O RAFICQ PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
12. SRI. AFROZ PASHA,
S/O LATE ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
THE PARTY No. 11 AND 12 ARE
RESIDING AT 5 CROSS,
MILLATH NAGAR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA ROAD,
KOLAR CITY-563101.
13. SRI. SIRAJ
S/O LATE SHAIK HYDAR,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
MRS. FAMEEDAUNNISA,
W/O LATE SIRAJ @ SHAIK SIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
14. MR. AFSAR PASHA,
S/O LATE SIRAJ @ SHAIK SIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
15. MRS. SULTHANA,
D/O LATE SIRAJ @ SHAIK SIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
16. MR. SADIQ PASHA,
S/O LATE SIRAJ @ SHAIK SIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
17. MR. ASHVAK,
S/O LATE SIRAJ @ SHAIK SIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
18. SRI. YASEEN PASHA,
D/O LATE SIRAJ @ SHAIK SIRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
19. MRS. HINA,
D/O LATE SIRAJ @ SHAIK SIRAJ,
W/O KHAJA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
PARTY Nos. 13 TO 19 ARE
RESIDING AT KAIWARA VILLAGE,
KAIWARE HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK-563125.
20. SRI. ASKAR @ ANSAR,
S/O LATE. SHAIK HYDAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
21. MR. AMAN,
S/O LATE. SHAIK HYDAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PARTY No.20 TO 21 ARE
RESIDING AT KAIWARA VILLAGE,
KAIWARE HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK-563125.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
22. MR. SHAFI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE. SHAIK GHOUSE,
23. MR. KAIRUN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O SHAIK GHOUSE,
24. MR. KAMMRUN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE. SHAIK GHOUSE,
PARTY Nos. 22,23, & 24 ARE
R/AT SHAINSHA NAGAR,
KOLAR CITY-563101.
25. MR. SULTHAN
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
S/O LATE. CHOTI SAB,
R/AT 6TH CROSS, SOMESHWARA NAGAR,
TANK GARDEN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560056.
26. MR. NOORULLA SAB
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE. ABDUL SAB,
27. MR. RASHID SABI
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
S/O LATE. ABDUL SABI,
28. MR. ARIFF
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE. SATHAR SABI,
29. MR. WASIM PASHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SATHAR SABI,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
PARTY No.25 TO 29 ARE
R/AT 6TH CROSS, SOMESHWARA NAGAR,
TANK GARDEN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560056.
30. MR. NIZAM
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O PYARASABI @ SHAIK HYDER
31. MR. MUNNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O PYARASABI @ SHAIK HYDER
32. MR. NAZZIR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O PYARASABI @ SHAIK HYDER
PARTY No.30,31, & 32 ARE
R/AT 5TH CROSS,
GURAPPANAPALYA TANK ROAD,
BENGALURU-560056.
33. MR. MUSAB
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMAD ASLAM
34. MR. MOHEB
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMAD ASLAM,
PARTY No.33 & 34 ARE
R/AT CLO FAYAZ BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR, NEAR RAVI THEATER,
SARJAPURA-562125, ANEKAL TALUK.
35. MR. SAHIR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD AMEER,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
36. MR. SHAKIL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD AMEER,
37. MR. MUNNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD AMEER,
PARTY No.35,36 & 37 ARE
R/AT OIL MARCHANT, 5TH CROSS,
SOMESHWARA NAGARA,
TANK GARDEN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560056.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 02-09-2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 3RD ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR IN O.S. NO.
298/2016 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 41 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed impugning the order dated
02.09.2026 passed in O.S. No. 298/2016, whereby I.A. No. 41,
filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, was rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the amendment to the written statement was necessitated by
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
the failure of the parties to comply with the deed of
confirmation dated 15.09.2020. It is contended that, since the
parties have failed to abide by the terms agreed upon in the
deed of confirmation, the proposed amendment ought to be
permitted to that extent, as it would assist the Court in the
complete adjudication of the suit. It is further submitted that
the Trial Court, without considering the aforesaid aspects, has
erroneously rejected the application.
3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
4. The suit is one for partition. The written statement was
filed on 28.10.2017, whereafter issues were framed and the
suit progressed to the stage of cross-examination of the
plaintiffs' witnesses. The deed of confirmation, which is sought
to be relied upon as the foundation for the proposed
amendment, is dated 15.09.2020. However, the affidavit
accompanying the application for amendment does not explain
why the proposed amendment could not have been sought
before the commencement of the trial.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
5. It is a settled position of law that amendments to
pleadings are to be considered liberally at any stage of the
proceedings, provided they are relevant to the adjudication of
the suit. However, such liberal consideration is subject to
compliance with the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
6. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC bars
amendment of pleadings after commencement of the trial
unless the party seeking the amendment establishes that,
despite exercising due diligence, the matter could not have
been raised before the commencement of the trial.
7. The proviso came up for consideration before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Basavaraj v. Indira & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC
705 , wherein it was held that no application for amendment of
pleadings shall be allowed after commencement of the trial
unless the Court is satisfied that, despite exercising due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before
commencement of the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further
held that the burden lies on the party seeking amendment after
commencement of the trial to establish that, despite exercising
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60942
WP No. 30510 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010665682026
due diligence, the amendment could not have been sought
earlier.
8. Upon perusal of the grounds set out in the affidavit filed
in support of the amendment application, it is evident that no
explanation has been offered as to the due diligence exercised
by the petitioner or why, despite such diligence, the proposed
amendment could not have been sought earlier. The Trial
Court, having regard to the bar imposed by the proviso to
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and the fact that the amendment
application was filed nearly nine years after the written
statement, has rightly rejected the application.
9. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned
order warranting interference.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20