Defendants' legal heirs sought amendment of their statement of objections in final decree proceedings after a preliminary decree for partition was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The High Court held amendments pleading pre-suit events are impermissible at final decree stage absent supervening circumstances and dismissed the writ petition.
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 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5268 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI GULLAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
CHIKKAMUNIAPPA S/O SANJEEVAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
NC: 2024:KHC:9131 WP No. 5268 of 2024
4 TO 7 ARE R/AT B CHANNASANDRA, DODDABANASWADI BENGALURU-560 043.
SRI DODDA MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
CHIKKAYAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1, 8 & 9 ALL R/O KUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDANAKUNDI POST K R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU-560 036.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.S.NAGENDRA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23/01/2024 ON IA NO. 1/2024 IN FDP NO. 25015/2017 ON THE FILE OF CH -29 XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. 1/2024 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:9131 WP No. 5268 of 2024
ORDER
This petition by the respondents 32, 33 & 34 (the LRs of defendant No.10) in FDP No.25015/2017 on the file of the XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 whereby the application I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the respondents 32, 33 & 34 (the LRs of defendant No.10) under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC seeking permission to amend the statement of objections (written statement) was rejected by the Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein and other defendants approached the Apex Court in SLP.No.3766/2016 which was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2016. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the final decree proceedings in FDP No.25015/2017 to enforce and implement the said preliminary decree passed by this Court which was confirmed by the Apex Court. The petitioners herein filed their statement of objections to the said Final Decree Petition. During the pendency of the Final Decree Proceedings, the petitioners herein filed the instant application I.A.No.1/24 seeking amendment of their statement of objections (written statement). The said application having been opposed by the respondents-plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioners are unnecessarily protracting the matter since the preliminary decree had attained finality by the judgment of the Apex Court in SLP.No.3766/2016 referred to supra. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the I.A.No.1/24 in FDP No.25015/2017, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:9131 WP No. 5268 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:9131 WP No. 5268 of 2024
institution of the suit itself and as such, there is no merit in the application seeking amendment by the petitioners which was rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:9131 WP No. 5268 of 2024
petitioners seek to introduce facts in relation to events that had transpired prior to institution of the suit, and earlier the preliminary decree and consequently in the light of the preliminary decree passed in RFA No.1420/2012, the question of permitting the petitioners to amend the written statement/statement of objections and plead events, facts and details prior to institution of the suit in the year 2000 is clearly impermissible in law.
NC: 2024:KHC:9131 WP No. 5268 of 2024
this Court in RP 241/2016 dated 16.08.2019 is concerned, the said order passed by this Court is as under:
“There is a delay of 1188 days in filing the present review petition. This review petition is filed praying to review the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 10.03.2016 in RFA No.1420/2012 mainly on the ground hat the original plaintiff who filed the suit for partition has not impleaded the present review petitioners as party. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. This Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
2. After arguing the matter at length, Sri.H.L.V.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo to withdraw the review petition with liberty to the review petitioners to file an application in the pending Final Decree Proceedings claiming their right, if any.
The memo is placed on record. The review petition is dismissed with liberty as prayed for.
In view of the disposal of the review petition, I.A.Nos.1,2 & 3 of 2019 do not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.”
NC: 2024:KHC:9131 WP No. 5268 of 2024
prior to institution of the suit. At any rate, this Court has merely permitted the petitioner to file an application in accordance with law and the same has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Under these circumstances this contention urged by the petitioners cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and
the same is hereby by dismissed .
SD/JUDGE
DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court rightly rejected an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend written statement in final decree proceedings after the preliminary decree attained finality.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lokesh K
Narasamma
Kalavathi
Narayanappa
Shakuntala
Shankar
S.R. Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
