TARABAI vs CHANDRABHAGA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 203755 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. TARABAI
W/O BHIMARAYA HEGADIHAL
@ INGALESHWAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMBAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA- 586112.

2. SAVITRI
W/O SURESH KONASHIRASAGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KORAMANGALA,
TUNGA COMPLEX,
“B” BLOCK, KSRTC QUARTERS,
BANGALORE- 560034.

…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SWATI AND
SRI G.B. YADAV, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. CHANDRABHAGA HERSELF CALLED AS
W/O BHIMARAYA HEGADIHAL
@ INGALESWAR,










Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMAKHAND ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586109.

2. NAGARAJ HIMSELF CALLED AS
S/O BHIMARAYA HEGADIHAL
@ INGALESWAR,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
R/O. JAMAKHAND ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA—586109.

3. SIDDU HIMSELF CALLED AS
S/O BHIMARAYA HEGADIHAL
@ INGALESWAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
R/O. JAMAKHAND ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586109.

4. JYOTHI HERSELF CALLED AS
D/O BHIMARAYA HEGADIHAL
@ INGALESWAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMAKHAND ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586109

5. BHARATHI
W/O DAYANAND METRI,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BAGALKOT SHANTI NAGAR,
NEAR KASTURIMATH,
BAGALKOT-587101.

6. BORAMMA W/O RAMESH YALASANGI,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMBAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA- 586109.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025



7. NAGAMMA
W/O SHIVALINGA SEMIKERI,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAMBAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA- 586112.

8. DEEPAK
S/O LAXMAN SALUNK,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. INDI ROAD DOMBAL AGASI,
PRATHAPA NAGAR,
NEAR AMBABHAVANI TEMPLE,
VIJAPURA,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA – 586109.

9. SRISHAILA
S/O MALLAPPA BENAKANAHALLI,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE,
R/O. ATHARGA, TQ. INDI,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586112.

10. SHIVASHARANA
S/O MALLAPPA BENAKANAHALLI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. ATHARGA, TQ. INDI,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT -586112.

11. MUKTAR AHAMMED
S/O ABDUL WAHID DAKHANI,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ASAR GALLI,
VIJAYAPURA -586209.

12. MADHU
S/O MARIBHA MANE,
AGE: 74 YEARS,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BURANAPURA,
VIJAYAPURA- 586209.

13. ANDANEPPA
S/O YAMANAPPA TOLAMATTI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. BALABATTI,
PRESENTLY R/AT ALAMATTI
TQ. NIDAGUNDI,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT- 586213.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
R1, R2 & R4;
SRI. MOINAKHTAR NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
R3, R5, R6, R7, R9, R10, R11 & R13 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT BASAVANA BAGEWADI PASSED IN O.S.NO.67/2013
ON I.A.NO.36 DATED 25.07.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND
ALLOW THE I.A.NO.36 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/
DEFENDANT NOS.2 AND 3 SEEKING AMENDMENT FILED UNDER
ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition
challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 passed on
I.A.No.36 in O.S.No.67 of 2013 by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are as
under:
Respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed suit for partition and
separate possession in O.S.No.67 of 2013. Petitioner
No.2 filed written statement and made a counter
claim. Respondent Nos.5 to 7/plaintiffs led evidence
and closed their side and thereafter, when the case
was posted for evidence of the defendant, at that
stage, the petitioners filed an application seeking
amendment to the written statement. The said
application was opposed by respondent Nos.5 to 7.
The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, rejected the application with costs of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


Rs.3,000/- vide order dated 25.07.2025. Hence, this
writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the arguments of Smt. Swati M.N., learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanganabasava B.
Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have filed an application seeking to
amend the written statement contending that at the
time of filing written statement, the petitioners were
unable to get the details of house property i.e.,
G.P.No.1229/2 of Ingaleshwar village, as Gram
Panchayath, Ingaleswar, did not give the details of
the said property and not provided a copy of the
property extract and hence, it is necessary to include
the said house property. She submits that the
proposed amendment does not change the nature of
defence. Hence, on this ground, she prays to allow
the writ petition. To buttresses her arguments, she

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Haramani Sahoo and
1
Others v. Lalita Nayak and Others .

5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the petitioners are in the
habit of filing application after application and the
conduct of the petitioners in filing of the application
after application is nothing but abuse of process of
law. The Trial Court was justified in passing the
impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays
to dismiss the writ petition.

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

7. It is an undisputed fact that respondent Nos.5 to 7
filed suit for partition and separate possession.
Petitioner No.2 filed written statement making a
counter claim. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 led the

1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 2123

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


evidence and closed their side and the case was
posted for evidence of the defendants. At that stage,
the petitioners filed an application seeking
amendment to the written statement. By way of
amendment to the written statement, the petitioners
wanted to include the property left out by respondent
Nos.5 to 7 in the plaint schedule property. As the
petitioners are intending to include one of the
properties by way of amendment, it does not change
the nature of case nor the cause of action.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to supra
at paragraphs-18 to 21 held as under:
“ 18. It is clarified that permitting the
amendment does not amount to
acceptance of the averments incorporated
therein, nor does it confer upon the
appellants any declaration or substantive
right in respect of the compromise decree.
All questions relating to maintainability of
the amended reliefs, limitation, the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


binding nature or otherwise of the decree,
the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 3A of
the CPC, title, possession and the merits
of the respective claims are expressly left
open for consideration by the trial Court in
accordance with law.
19. The objection as to prejudice also
does not warrant rejection of the
amendment. The prejudice relied upon by
the respondents principally arises from the
additional factual and legal issues which
they would now be required to meet. Such
prejudice can adequately be addressed by
permitting the respondents to file an
additional written statement and where
necessary, by imposing appropriate costs.
The mere fact that an amendment
requires the opposite party to meet
additional pleadings or issues does not, by
itself, warrant refusal of the amendment
where the amendment is necessary for a
complete and effective adjudication of the
controversy.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


20. Conversely, refusal of the amendment
may result in the controversy concerning
title to the same property being
fragmented into separate proceedings,
with the attendant possibility of
inconsistent findings in respect of the
same parcel of land. Avoidance of such
multiplicity, while preserving the
respondents' right to contest the amended
pleadings on all available grounds, is also
a relevant consideration in the exercise of
jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC.
21. The decision in Basavaraj v. Indira
(supra) does not, on the facts of the
present case, call for a different
conclusion. The present case turns upon
its own facts. In particular, the disputed
chain of title, the assertion that the
original plaintiff was not a party to the
compromise proceedings, the subsequent
discovery of the compromise decree, and
the material indicating that certified copies
of the plaint and final decree were
obtained only on 22.06.2020, furnish an

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025


explanation which cannot, at this stage,
be construed as a mere omission or
negligence. As indicated above, the
requirement of due diligence contemplated
by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC stands satisfied. ”


9. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that considerable delay
in seeking amendment and the inconvenience that
may be caused to the respondent cannot be
disregarded. Considering the exposition of law in the
case referred to supra , the impugned order passed
by the Trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence,
I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court.

10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11330
WP No. 203755 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030149042025



ii. The impugned order dated 25.07.2025
passed on I.A.No.36 in O.S.No.67 of
2013 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge
at Basavana Bagewadi, is hereby set
aside. Consequently, the application filed
by the petitioners under Order VI Rule
17 of CPC is allowed subject to the
petitioners paying Rs.10,000/- to
respondent Nos.5 to 7 before the Trial
Court on the next date of hearing.


Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE



NB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
Ct:pk