SHRI ASHOK NINGAPPA GOUROJI vs SHRI GURUNATH HANAMANT MULANGI,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD



TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 104736 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)



BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. ASHOK NINGAPPA GOUROJI,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION. WEAVER,
R/O. MANIHAL, TALUKA-RAMDURG,
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.




2. SHRI. HANAMANT NINGAPPA GOUROJI,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIHAL, TALUKA-RAMDURG,
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.



3. SHRI. MOUNESH NINGAPPA GOUROJI,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIHAL, TALUKA-RAMDURG,
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.


BHARATHI
H M
4. SHRI. NAGARAJ NINGAPPA GOUROJI,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION. PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. MANIHAL, TALUKA-RAMDURG,
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G. R. TURAMARI
& SRI DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)


Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad
bench
Date: 2026.10.13
10:47:46 +0530
AND:

1. SHRI. GURUNATH HANAMANT MULANGI,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIHAL, TALUKA-RAMDURG,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023


DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.

2. SHRI. NINGAPPA BASAPPA MULANGI,
AGE. 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIHAL, TALUKA-RAMDURG,
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.

3. SHRI. BASAPPA SIDDAPPA MULANGI
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIHAL, TALUKA-RAMDURG,
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.

4. SHRI. MAHADEV SIDDAPPA MULANGI,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MANIHAL, TALUKA-RAMDURG,
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.

5. THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, MANIHAL,
TALUKA-RAMDURG,
DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591127.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. L. PATIL, SRI. S.S. BETURMATH,
& SRI. B. G. INDI, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 01-06-2023 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.168/2012 BY THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
RAMDURG, IN RESPECT OF REJECTION OF- “I.A.NO.VII FILED UNDER
ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY AMENDMENT
IN THE PLAINT”, THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 01-06-2023
IS HEREWITH FURNISHED AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS
HIGHLY PERVERSE AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023


ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.168 of
2012 pending before the Civil Judge & Judicial magistrate
First Class at Ramdurg. The suit is one for declaration of
title and consequential injunction. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2023 by which I.A.
No.VII seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected
by the Civil Court.

2. The facts, in brief, culminating in the present
petition are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S. No.168 of 2012
before the Civil Judge & Judicial magistrate First Class at
Ramdurg against the respondents herein seeking the reliefs
of declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the
property described in para-3 of the plaint. Along with the
plaint, a hand-drawn sketch was produced by the plaintiff.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023



3. Upon service of summons, the defendants filed a
written statement and resisted the suit. They took a specific
plea that the description of the property by the plaintiff is
incorrect.

4. The plaintiff filed an application seeking
amendment of the boundaries of the property. That
application was allowed.

5. After framing issues, the examination of
witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff started.

6. Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1. He was
cross-examined in detail on behalf of the defendants.

7. After completion of the deposition of PW1, PW2
was examined.

8. When the deposition of PW2 was being recorded,
the plaintiff filed two applications – I.A. No.VII under Order
1
VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking

1

‘CPC’ fort short

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023


amendment of the plaint and I.A. No.VIII under Order VII
Rule 14 of CPC seeking permission to produce the hand
sketch issued by the Civil Engineer with respect to the
property in question.

9. The respondents-defendants filed common
objections to both the applications.

10. By an order dated 01.06.2023, the Civil Court
allowed the application in I.A. No.VIII under Order VII Rule
14 of CPC. In the course of that order, the Civil Court noted
that the application for amendment of the plaint was also
pending. It was further noted that it was important to go
through the documents produced along with I.A. No.VIII to
consider the application for amendment. With this
reasoning, the application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC
was allowed and the document was taken on record. The
following is the reasoning of the Civil Court while making
this Order:

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023


“The plaintiff has filed the said application in
hand at the stage of cross examination of PW.2. It is
pertinent to note that upon the strength of the
document annexed with application in hand i.e., the
sketch issued by the Civil Engineer the plaintiffs
have filed an application U/o.6 rule 17 of CPC
seeking to amend the plaint more particularly the
measurement and boundaries of the suit schedule
property. It is contention of the plaintiff that the
hand sketch issued by the Civil Engineer is
pertaining to suit schedule property. To consider the
application filed under Order 6 rule 17 it is important
to go through the document produced herein under.
Moreover, the genuineness and credibility of
document can be appreciated only after the full
pledged trial. At this stage, I am of the opinion that
the application filed by the plaintiff is fit to be
allowed.”


11. By a separate order dated 01.06.2023, the Civil
Court has rejected I.A. No.VII seeking amendment of the
plaint. This is the order impugned in the present petition.

12. I have heard Sri. G.R. Turamari, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri. S.S. Beturmath, learned counsel
for the respondents.

13. Sri. G.R. Turamari, learned counsel for the
petitioners, submits that the Civil Court, having allowed the
application filed under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC, erred in

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023


rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. It is
his submission that the document, namely, the sketch
prepared by the Civil Engineer describing the property in
question, having been taken on record, it was incorrect for
the Civil Court to have refused a formal amendment of the
plaint to include averments based on the very same
document. He also relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram
2
Kishan . He therefore prays that the writ petition may be
allowed and the application for amendment of the plaint be
allowed.

14. Sri. S.S. Beturmath, learned counsel, opposes
the writ petition on the ground that the application for
amendment is belated. He also contends that the
description of the property in the proposed amendment is
completely different from the original description as was
contained in the plaint. It is his further contention that after
cross-examination of PW1, the plaintiff has come up with

2

LAW(SC) 2005 8 120

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023


the present application for amendment. On all these
grounds, the learned counsel Sri. S.S. Beturmath, prays
that the writ petition be dismissed.

15. I have carefully considered the rival contentions
and also gone through the records.

16. The fact that the Civil Court has allowed the
application filed under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC and has
taken the sketch produced by the Civil Engineer on record
makes all the difference in the present case.

17. For ease of reference, the provisions of Order VII
Rule 14 of CPC are reproduced here below:
“ORDER VII – Plaint
Rule 14. Production of document on which
plaintiff sues.—
(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies
upon a document in his possession or power, in
support of his claim, he shall enter such documents
in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint
is presented by him and shall, at the same time,
deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed
with the plaint.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023


(2) Where any such document is not in the
possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall,
wherever possible, state in whose possession or
power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be entered in the list
referred to in sub-rule (1), but which has not been
so entered, shall not, without the leave of the Court,
be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing
of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents
produced for cross-examination of the defendant’s
witnesses, or handed to a witness merely to refresh
his memory.”
( emphasis supplied)

19. It is noticed that Rule 14 of Order VII of CPC
deals with the production of document on which the plaintiff
sues or relies
. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII of CPC
provides that a document which ought to be produced by
the plaintiff when the plaint is presented but is not so
produced shall not be received in evidence without the
leave of the Court. The emphasis of the provisions of Order
VII Rule 14 of CPC is on the document on which the plaintiff
sues or relies. The documentary basis for the case made
out by the plaintiff is plaint is therefore the subject matter
of Order VII Rule 14 of CPC.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023



20. In the present case, as noticed above, the Civil
Court has allowed production of the document and has
received it on record. In view of the provisions of Order VII
Rule 14 of CPC, that is a document on which the plaintiff
sues or relies
. Such a document having been received on
the record, it is incongruous that formal amendment of the
plaint incorporating averments based on such a document
is not allowed.

21. It is further necessary to note that the Civil
Court, while allowing the application under Order VII Rule
14 of CPC, noted that the document itself was necessary to
be looked into while considering the application for
amendment. However, there is no proper consideration of
the order on the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 of
CPC while rejecting the application for amendment. The
defendants will have full opportunity to file an additional
written statement and take all admissible defences to
oppose the newly added averments in the plaint.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023



22. Having said this, it is also necessary to note that
the plaintiff has delayed filing of the application for
amendment. The defendants have to be compensated with
appropriate costs while allowing the amendment.

23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the
following:
ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed and the order
dated 01.06.2023 on I.A. No.VII in O.S.
No.168 of 2012 passed by the Civil Judge &
Judicial magistrate First Class at Ramdurg,
is set aside.
(ii) I.A. No.VII in O.S. No.168 of 2012 for
amendment of the plaint is allowed subject
to the petitioner paying a cost of ₹15,000/-
to the respondents within a period of
two (2) weeks from today.
(iii) The respondents-defendants shall be at
liberty to file an additional written
statement to the amended plaint and it will

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16547
WP No. 104736 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020124522023


also be open to the respondents-
defendants to take all such defences as are
admissible in law.

Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE

VNP / CT: SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 60