SRI HANUMANTH S/O NARAYAN PAI vs MR ASIS S/O GUSTIN D'SOUZA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17851
WP No. 101662 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020047002024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 101662 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI HANUMANTH S/O NARAYAN PAI
AGE. 69 YEARS,
OCC. RETIRED SYNDICATE BANK EMPLOYEE,
R/O. BANDEHALLA, HONNAVAR-581334.
TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.



…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SURESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. MR. ASIS S/O GUSTIN D'SOUZA
AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BANDEHALLA, HONNAVAR-581334,
TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

2. SRI VENKATESH S/O NARAYAN PAI
AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BANDEHALLA, HONNAVAR-581334,
TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

3. SMT. RADHA W/O PRABHAKAR PAI,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BANDEHALLA, HONNAVAR-581334,
TQ. HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.






Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad bench

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 18.11.2023 DISMISSING THE INTERIM APPLICATION
IN I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION
151 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO IN

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17851
WP No. 101662 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020047002024


O.S.NO.93/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, HONNAVAR PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.V AND ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

1. The, petitioner, who is the defendant No.2 in
O.S.No.93/2018, is before this Court, being aggrieved by
the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge
and JMFC, Honnavar, in terms of which application filed by
the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of Code Civil
Procedure, seeking amendment of the written statement,
has been dismissed. The above suit is filed by the
plaintiff/respondent for relief of permanent injunction in
respect of following schedule property:
“¥Àj²µÀÖ
GvÀÛgÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ f¯Áè ºÉÆ£ÁߪÀgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, ¨ÁAzÉúÀ¼ÀîzÀ zÁªÁ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ «ªÀgÀ:-
dAeÁæ
£ÀA.
¸ÀªÉð
£ÀA.
»¸Áì
£ÀA.
PÉëÃvÀæ DPÁgÀ ZÀvÀÄUÀðr
1 53C 3 0-10-0
R 0-1-0
¤QÌ 0-9-0
gÀÆ 3-82 ¸ÀªÉð ¥ÉÆÃmï
»¸ÁìUÀr

2. The written statement has been filed by the defendants,
wherein, apart from denying the case of the plaintiff, a
specific and categorical averment by assertion is made to

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17851
WP No. 101662 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020047002024


the effect that the defendants have been in physical
possession of the suit properties since time immemorial.
The said averment by assertion is repeated in paragraph 3.
However, in paragraph 5, while repeating the same
averments, the word “defendant”, due to typographical
error, it is typed as “plaintiff” in the Kannada language.
The defendants have also questioned the very
maintainability of the suit in the original proceedings,
which aspect is required to be considered.
3. Under these circumstances, the defendant No.2/petitioner
filed the application seeking amendment of the written
statement by substituting the word “plaintiff” with the
word “defendant” and to add a sentence at the end of
paragraph 5 with regard to plaintiff being required to seek
relief of declaration and possession.
4. Objections to the said application were filed by the
respondent, contending that the proposed amendment
would amount to withdrawal of an admission made by the
defendant No.2/petitioners, causing prejudice to the
plaintiff. Hence, sought for rejection of the application.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17851
WP No. 101662 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020047002024


Accepting the contention the trial Court dismissed the
application. Being aggrieved, the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of

this Court to the averments in the unamended written
statement, submits that it is the consistent stand of the
defendants/petitioner that they have been in possession
and enjoyment of the suit property since time immemorial
and have categorically denied the claim of the plaintiff in
respect of the said property. However, in paragraph 5, due
to an inadvertent bonafide typographical error, instead of
typing the word “ ”, the word “ ” has
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÉÃ
been typed, which is now sought to be corrected. The
same does not amount to withdrawal of the admission.
Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent stoutly opposes the

petition and contends that, if the amendment is allowed, it
would amount to withdrawal of an admission, thereby
causing prejudice to the vested rights of the plaintiff. He
submits that the trial Court has committed no error and
hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17851
WP No. 101662 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020047002024


7. Heard and perused the records.
8. Paragraphs 2,3 and 5 of the written statement read as
under:
"2) ªÀÄÆ®zÁªÁzÀ ¥ÁågÁ 2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ
zÀÆgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®UÉÃt ºÀQÌ£À d«ÄãÀÄ
DVgÀĪÀzÁUÀ°Ã, ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀĪÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ ¸À¢æ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢UÉ ªÀÄAdÆj
ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ RqÁRArvÀªÁV
C®èUÀ¼ÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸À¢æ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀ PÉÆøÁÛ r¸ÉÆÃeÁ EªÀgÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ
E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è zÁR¯ÁVzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ aPÀÌ¥Àà
PÉÆøÁÛ r¸ÉÆÃeÁ ªÉÄÊvÀ£ÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁzÀ CAvÉÆä EªÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ
zÁR¯ÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÉÄà ¥ÀÅgÁªÉ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌ¢ÝgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÁ¢AiÀÄ aPÀ̪ÀÄä
CAvÉÆä EªÀ¼ÀÄ «¯ï£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gɹlÖzÁÝUÀ°Ã, CzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸À.£ÀA.53C/3
¥Àæw¥ÉÇÃr DVgÀĪÀzÁUÀ°Ã, F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ E®è. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F zÁªÁPÉÌ
CzÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀqÀzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. zÁªÁ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ºÉÃgÀ¼À ºÀt
RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrzÁÝUÀ°Ã, CxÀªÁ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÉAUÀÄ, CrPÉ. ªÀiÁªÀÅ, ºÀ®¸ÀÄ
ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨É¼É¹zÁÝUÀ°Ã, EgÀĪÀ¢®è. ¸À¢æà zÁªÁ ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ C£Á¢PÁ®¢AzÀ®Æ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ RÄzÀÝ PÀ¨ÁÓzÀ°èzÀÄÝ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ F ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨É¼É¸ÀĪÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÉÄÃ
GzÀ㫸ÀĪÀ¢®è. zÁªÁ C¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ºÀQÌ£À D¹ÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ
EzÀgÀ°è E£ÁßjUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ. ¸ÀA§AzsÀ, ¸Áé«ÄvÀé EgÀĪÀ¢®è.
3) ¥ÁågÁ 3 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 £ÉÃ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀjzÁÝgÉA§ÄzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ 1, 2 £ÉÃ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ£ÁzÀ ªÉÄÊvÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgÀ£À ºÉAqÀw JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁªÁ
d«Ää£À PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ®UÀÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ G½zÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß F
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ zÁªÁ d«Ää£À ¸ÀÄvÀÛ®Æ ¥ÁUÁgÀ ªÀ ¨Éð
EgÀĪÀzÀ£ÀÄß, ªÁ¢-¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥ÀævÀå-¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁVAiÉÄà EgÀĪÀzÀ£ÀÄß F
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ C®èUÀ¼ÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ C£Á¢PÁ®¢AzÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ
RÄzÀÝ PÀ¨ÁÓzÀ°èzÀÄÝ ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ F D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀĪÀ¢®è. zÁªÁ
D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ªÀÄÆ® D¹ÛAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀ ¨sÁUÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÁjÃR
20-06-2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CwPÀæ«Ä¸ÀÄ«gÁzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ PÀ¨ÁÓ ªÀ»ªÁnUÉ DvÀAPÀ¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁzÀ
«µÀAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸À¢æà D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ PÀ¨ÁÓªÀ»ªÁn£À°ègÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÁ¢UÉ zsÀªÀÄQ ºÁPÀĪÀzÁUÀ°Ã, vÉAV£À ªÀÄgÀUÀ½AzÀ PÁ¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
QüÀĪÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÉÄà §gÀĪÀ¢®è ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ d£À, zsÀ£À, §®¢AzÀ C£Á¢PÁ®¢AzÀ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ RÄzÀÝ PÀ¨ÁÓzÀ°èzÀÝ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CwPÀæ«Ä¸ÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ F ¸ÀļÀÄî
zÁªÁ zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀPÀÄÌ
EgÀĪÀ¢®è. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀéZÀÒ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ §A¢gÀĪÀ¢®è. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À¢æ

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17851
WP No. 101662 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020047002024


¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ PÀ¨ÁÓ ªÀ»ªÁn£À°è EgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ
«gÀÄzÀÞ PÁAiÀÄA ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÁeÉÕUÉ CºÀð¤gÀĪÀ¢®è.
5)
zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÁV¤AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ
C£Á¢PÁ®¢AzÀ®Æ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ PÀ¨ÁÓ ªÀ»ªÁn£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀªÉÃð £ÀA§gÀ
»¸Áì ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ vÀ¥ÁàV ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ PÀmÁÖ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ
CzÀgÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ F ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁªÉ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É.
zÁªÁ ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ vÉAUÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CrPÉ ªÀÄgÀUÀ½AzÀ PÀÆrzÀ ¨sÁUÁAiÀÄvÀ ¸ÀܼÀªÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ
¯ÁUÁéqÀ£ÀÄß “ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÉÔ ªÀiÁr §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgÀ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¥ÉÊ FvÀ£À
ªÀÄgÀtzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¨ÉÃgÉ-¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ
G½zÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀzÀgÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ F ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁªÉ
zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. DzÀÝjAzÀ PÉêÀ® ±Á±ÀévÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÁeÉÕ zÁªÉ F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ
«gÀÄzÀÞ £ÀqÉAiÀįÁgÀzÀÄ. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ §UÉÎ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀļÀÄî
ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr zÁªÁ ¸ÀܼÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ§½¸ÀĪÀ KPÉÊPÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ F ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁªÁ
zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F zÁªÁ
PÉêÀ® SÁAiÀÄA vÁQÃw£À zÁªÉ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ
ªÁ¢AiÀÄ PÀ¨ÁÓ zÁªÁ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è E®èzÉà EgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ C£Á¢PÁ®¢AzÀ zÁªÁ
¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ PÀ¨ÁÓ ªÀ»ªÁn£À°è EgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ F zÁªÁ ¥Àæ¸ÀPÀÛ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è
F ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ £ÀqÉAiÀįÁgÀzÀÄ.”
9. Thus, the defendants have retreated their claim that they
being in possession of the suit property since time
immemorial at least on four occasions. It is only in the
third sentence of paragraph 5, as noted above, that
instead of the word, “ ” the word “ ”, has
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÉÃ
been typed.
10. The last sentence of paragraph 5 has further reiterated the
previous sentences to the effect that the defendants have
been in possession of the property since time immemorial.
Thus, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the use of the word “ ” in the third
ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÉÃ

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17851
WP No. 101662 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020047002024


sentence of paragraph 5 is a typographical error and
cannot even be construed as stray admission, let alone a
clear and unambiguous admission requiring to decree the
suit or creation of any right in favour of the plaintiff.
11. The last sentence of paragraph 5 further clarifies the
consistent stand of the petitioner, as noted above.
12. The trial Court, in the considering view of this Court,
though has relied upon the law laid up by the Apex Court
in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash
1
Kajaria and others , has not adverted to the intrinsic
facts and circumstances of this case.
13. The second amendment sought by the petitioner was in
the nature of adding further plea that the plaintiff is
required to seek larger relief of declaration and possession.
14. The last sentence of paragraph 5 of written statement, as
noted above, has raised issue of maintainability of the suit.
The second portion amendment is only an elaboration of
the said plea.
15. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed .

1
(2015) 10 SCC 203

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17851
WP No. 101662 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020047002024


16. The impugned order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the Trial
Court in O.S.No.93/2018, rejecting the application filed by
the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking
amendment of the written statement, is hereby quashed
and set aside.
17. The application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment
is allowed.
18. The defendant No.2/petitioner is permitted to amend the
written statement.
19. The trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


RHR
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31