Defendant in a partition suit sought amendment of the written statement at final arguments to add two family properties omitted from the suit. The High Court upheld rejection of the amendment but permitted him to claim a share in those properties in final decree proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34208 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M Y.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH @ THAMMAIAH AGEDABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE HULIYURDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TQ TUMKUR DIST 572123
PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O CHOWDAIAH DEAD BY LRS., 4. VARADARAJU C S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS SRI LAKSHMI NIVASA NO. 1340/3049 KRS AGRAHARA KEMPEGOWDA ROAD KUNIGAL TOWN 572130
D/O LATE CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O PRASANNA KUMAR NO. 11, 3RD CROSS, 4TH STAGE JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT NAGADEVANAHALLI NEAR ANNAPOORNESWARI TEMPLE BANGALORE 560 056
MANJU BUILDING ELWALA HUNSUR MYSORE ROAD MYSORE 571130
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO. 11 3RD CROSS NAGADEVANAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE 560 060
CHANNAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS. 10. DUNDAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH, D/O LATE CHANNIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT, HANGARAHALLI VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572123.
11. RAJANNA
S/O LATE CHANNIAH,
NC: 2024:KHC:53187 WP No. 34208 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT, RAJENDRAPURA VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572123.
12. PADMAMMA,
W/O LATE GANGADHAIAH, D/O LATE CHANNIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT, RAJENDRAPURA VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572123.
S/O LATE CHANNIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT, MENASAGEREDODDI VILLAGE, CHOWDANAKUPPE POST, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572123
14. SAROJAMMA
W/O MURTHY, D/O LATE CHANNIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HALEVOOR VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572123.
15. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MENASAGEREDODDI VILLAGE, CHOWDANAKUPPE POST, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572123.
16. SURESH
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MENASAGEREDODDI VILLAGE, CHOWDANAKUPPE POST, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572123.
NC: 2024:KHC:53187 WP No. 34208 of 2024
17. GOWRAMMA
W/O SHIVALINGAIAH, D/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, @THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 411/A, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, ITI LAYOUT, BEHIND THE CLUB, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560039
W/O LAKKANNA, D/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, @THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.84, 12TH CROSS, NEAR BRUNDAVANA ROAD, RAJAGOPALANAGARA, BENGALURU-560058
…RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 16.10.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL ON I.A.UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC IN O.S.NO. 128/2008 VIDE ANNX-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O 6 RULE 17 CPC IN O.S.NO. 128/2008 (ANNXC).GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY OF ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN OS NO. 128/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KUNIGAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The defendant in O.S No.128/2008 is before this Court challenging an order dated 16.10.2024 by which an application filed by him to amend the written statement for incorporating some additional properties was rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:53187 WP No. 34208 of 2024
rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the same was filed at a belated stage and that the defendants did not exercise due diligence at the time of filing the written statement. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant is before this Court.
the suit. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was in a way justified in not allowing the defendant to amend the written statement which would roll back the suit to the stage of the evidence of the parties. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not warrant interference.
the defendant has any claim in so far as the property which is sought to be included by way of an amendment, the defendant
is at liberty to seek for his share in the aforesaid properties in final decree proceedings.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly rejected the defendant's belated application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement at the stage of final arguments.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayamma Ugraiahna Narasaiah
Girigowda S/o Late Chikkathimmaiha @ Thammaiah
Ramakrishna S/o Late Chikkathimmaiha @ Thammaiah
Shivanna S/o Late Chikkathimmaiah @ Thammaiah
Varadaraju C S/o Late Chowdaiah
Prema C D/o Late Chowdaiah
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
