SMT. G. R. UMA vs SRINIVASAPPA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 14800 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:


SMT. G. R. UMA
W/O K. MURALEEDHAR
RESIDENT OF CHENNARAYAPATNA
HASSAN DISTRICT
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

1. SMT. G.R. GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE B.S. VASUDEVA MURTHY
D/O LATE G.V. RAMAIAH

2. SMT. G.R. NAGARATHNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WIFE OF SRI. SUBRAHMANYA
D/O LATE G.V. RAMAIAH

3.
SMT. G.R. VASUDHA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O SRI. H.V. SRIDHAR
D/O LATE G.V. RAMAIAH

4. SMT. G.R. RAMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O SRI. S. RAMESH
D/O LATE G.V. RAMAIAH













Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



1 TO 4 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.87 (OLD), NEW NO.13,
5TH MAIN, N.R. COLONY
BENGALURU - 560 004,
1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. R.G.S. KUMAR.

5. SRI. R.G.S KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE G.V. RAMAIAH
R/A NO.9, RESIDING AT NO.9
"PAVANASHREE", 8TH CROSS,
VIDYAPEETHA ROAD, KENGERI
BENGALURU - 560 060.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANTHARAM G.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. SRINIVASAPPA
MAJOR, S/O BASAPPA
BENNIGANAHALLY
K.R. PURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

2. CHIKKALAGUMAIAH
MAJOR, S/O DODDAPPAIAH
DASARAHALLY,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.

3. P.B. SRINIVASAIAH
MAJOR, S/O CHIKKABYRAPPA
@ K. BYAPPA
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



4. SANTOSH
MAJOR, S/O P.B. SRINIVASAIAH

3 TO 5 ARE TOGETHER
RESIDING AT PAPANAHALLI
CHENNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

5. S. BASANTHA KUMAR
MAJOR, S/O P.B. SRINIVASAIAH
3 TO 5 ARE TOGETHER RESIDING
AT PAPANAHALLI,
CHENNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

6. SMT. KOUSALYA BAI
W/O LATE J. SUBHAN SINGH
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
(RESPONDENT NO.6 DEAD AND
THE RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 12
LEGL REPRESENTATIVES OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.6)

7. SMT. BINDU RANI
MAJOR

8. SMT. RANJAN DEVI,
MAJOR
W/O SRI. SUNDAR SINGH

9. SMT. ROOPA RANI,
MAJOR
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



W/O SRI JAGADESH SINGH

10. SMT. ASHA DEVI,
MAJOR

11. SMT. GAYATHRI,
MAJOR

12. MR. J.S. LAKSHMAN SINGH, MAJOR
(7) TO (12) ARE THE
CHILDREN OF LATE KAUSALYA BAI
AND J. SUBHAN SINGH,
(7) TO (12) ARE RESIDING AT
'SHIVARUDRA NILAYA', 2ND FLOOR
NO. 86, K.V. LANE, AKKIPET CROSS
BANGALORE - 560 053.

13. MR. R. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O RAMANNA
RESIDING AT SRI. BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA
HAROHALLI CROSS, MALUR TOWN.

14. SMT. ANURADHA AGGARWAL
W/O SRI. NANDAKISHORE AGARWAL
AGEDA BOUT 25 YEARS
R/A 'ABHILASHA'
NO. 270/34, 5TH MAIN
IV BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 011.

15. SMT. MANJULA
W/O SRI. R. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT 'BHAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA',
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



HAROHALLI ROAD, MALUR TOWN.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITH JAHGIRDAR, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. NAMAN VANKDARI M, ADVOCATE FOR R14;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2020, NOTICE TO R1, R2, R7
TO R12 DISPENSED WITH;
R6 - DECEASED;
R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2025, NOTICE O R5 - S
BASANTHA KUMAR IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
OS NO.411/2011 OF THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MALUR AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

C aptioned writ petition is filed by the legal
representatives of the original plaintiff, assailing the order
dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Malur, in O.S.No.411/2011, whereby I.A.No.31 filed by
the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the
plaint, came to be rejected.
2. The suit was instituted by the original plaintiff, Uma.
During the pendency of the proceedings, her legal
representatives came on record and sought amendment of the
plaint. Defendant No.8, who claims to have purchased the
property through defendant Nos.7 and 9, filed detailed
objections opposing the proposed amendment.
3. The learned Trial Judge has rejected the application
principally on the ground that the plaintiffs were not diligent in
seeking the amendment and that amendments to the plaint had
been sought on several earlier occasions. The learned Judge
has also observed that the proposed amendment, particularly
the amendment sought in paragraph (i), would result in
ambiguity and confusion vis-à-vis the reliefs sought in the
original plaint and that permitting such an amendment at this
stage would unnecessarily consume judicial time. It is this
order which is called in question in the present writ petition.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.8. Perused
the original plaint instituted by the original plaintiff, Uma, as
also the proposed amended pleadings.
5. The principal objection urged by the learned counsel
appearing for defendant No.8 is with regard to the amendment
proposed in paragraph (i). It is contended that the proposed
pleading is diametrically opposite to the pleadings contained in
the original plaint and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be
permitted to introduce a plea inconsistent with the original
pleadings.
6. It is further contended that, upon the death of the
original plaintiff, Uma, her Class-I heirs have not sought to
come on record and that her siblings, who would fall within the
category of Class-II heirs, have sought to prosecute the suit.
On this premise, it is contended that the proposed amendment,
particularly paragraph (i), cannot be permitted. Though the
learned counsel initially opposed the other amendments as
well, during the course of hearing, the principal objection was
confined to the amendment proposed in paragraph (i).
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would contend that the proposed amendments are
in consonance with the original pleadings and are intended only
to elaborate and bring on record certain additional facts. It is
submitted that the petitioners are not seeking to withdraw any
admission made in the original plaint or to introduce a case
which would fundamentally alter the nature and character of
the suit.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and having
examined the original plaint as well as the proposed
amendments, this Court is of the view that the proposed
amendments, though somewhat exhaustive, essentially relate
to additional facts and elaboration of the case already pleaded.
The proposed amendments, in the considered opinion of this
Court, do not alter the basic nature and character of the suit
nor do they seek to displace or take away any vested right
accrued to the defendants on account of the original pleadings.
9. It is a settled principle that, particularly at the pre-trial
stage, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is required
to be considered liberally, unless the proposed amendment
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



changes the nature and character of the suit, introduces a
wholly inconsistent case, or causes such prejudice to the
opposite party as cannot be adequately compensated by costs.
10. In the present case, the learned Trial Judge appears
to have been considerably influenced by the fact that the
plaintiffs had, on earlier occasions, sought amendments to the
plaint and that the Court had granted indulgence on several
occasions. There is certainly an element of lack of diligence on
the part of the plaintiffs in repeatedly seeking amendments.
However, the conduct of the plaintiffs, by itself, cannot be the
sole determinative factor when the proposed amendment is
otherwise found to be germane to the controversy and capable
of being effectively dealt with by permitting the defendants to
file additional pleadings.
11. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the suit is
of the year 2001 and that repeated amendments ought not to
be permitted as a matter of course. Nevertheless, considering
the nature of the proposed amendments and the stage of the
proceedings, this Court is of the view that, as a final
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



indulgence, the petitioners can be permitted to carry out the
proposed amendment, subject to appropriate terms.
12. The apprehension of defendant No.8 and the other
contesting defendants can adequately be addressed by
permitting them to file additional written statements to the
amended plaint. Such an opportunity would ensure that the
defendants suffer no prejudice on account of the amendment.
The petitioners, on the other hand, would be seriously
prejudiced if they are denied an opportunity to bring on record
the proposed pleadings, which, in the considered opinion of this
Court, do not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass
the following:

ORDER
allowed
i. The writ petition is .
ii. The order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, in
O.S.No.411/2011, rejecting I.A.No.31 filed under Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC, is hereby set aside.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



iii. I.A.No.31 filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC is allowed, subject to the conditions
stipulated herein.
iv. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall pay a sum of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the
Karnataka Advocates’ Clerks’ Benevolent Trust Fund
within three days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
v. The petitioners shall produce the receipt evidencing
payment of the aforesaid costs before the learned Trial
Court, whereupon the learned Trial Court shall permit
the petitioners to carry out the proposed amendment
and file the amended plaint.
vi. The petitioners shall simultaneously furnish a copy
of the amended plaint to all the contesting defendants.
vii. The contesting defendants shall be at liberty to file
additional written statements, if any, to the amended
plaint.
viii. The permission granted to amend the plaint shall
be treated as a final indulgence and no further
application for amendment shall ordinarily be
entertained, except for reasons permissible in law.
Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Verified

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56315
WP No. 14800 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010389522020



ix. Having regard to the fact that O.S.No.411/2011 is of
the year 2001, the learned Trial Judge shall endeavour
to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The plaintiffs shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments and shall
cooperate in commencement and completion of their
evidence.
x. The defendants shall also extend necessary
cooperation and shall not seek unnecessary
adjournments.
xi. The learned Trial Judge shall make every endeavour
to dispose of the suit at the earliest, in accordance with
law.
No order as to costs in the present writ petition.

Digitally Signed By:
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Verified
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE




HDK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2