Dismissed¶75

Sri. Putta Narasaiah v. Smt. Nagarathnamma

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2025WP/14338/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was rejected, leaving the trial court's order allowing the amendment undisturbed. ¶75

Sri. Putta Narasaiah Vs Smt. Nagarathnamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was rejected, leaving the trial court's order allowing the amendment undisturbed.

¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff's application (I.A.No.5) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint in O.S.No.759/2020, after a lapse of about four years and after framing of issues, calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

The reasons rendered by the trial court in allowing the amendment do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference, and entertaining the subject petition would stall the further trial of O.S.No.759/2020.

¶69

Ratio / Principle

In the peculiar facts of the case — the Schedule 'F' property having already been a part of the suit, deleted, and now being bought back — there is no warrant for interference by this Court with the trial court's order allowing the amendment.

¶74

Key takeaways

Once issues are framed and the matter progresses to a large extent, applications of this kind (for amendment of the plaint) should not be permitted, as that would only protract the proceedings.obiter¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), single bench (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), oral order dated 09.06.2025 in W.P. No.14338 of 2025 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution: defendants Nos.1(a), 3 to 5 in O.S.No.759/2020 (suit for partition and separate possession, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural) challenged the order dated 24.10.2024 on I.A.No.5 allowing the plaintiff, at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by re-adding Schedule 'F' property (Khata No.93/93) which had earlier formed part of the suit, was deleted owing to office objection over documents, and was re-sought once documents were obtained. Objections: amendment after four years and after framing of issues; Defendant No.3's claim that the property was allotted to his share and self-acquired. Held: whether the property is self-acquired is a matter for full trial; the trial court's reasons (evidence not commenced; property already part of the suit, deleted and brought back; amendments necessary to decide the real controversy) suffer no perversity; while amendments after framing of issues are ordinarily not to be permitted as they protract proceedings, the peculiar facts leave no warrant for interference. Petition rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 14338 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PUTTA NARASAIAH AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKA NARASAIAH

¶9

R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶10

SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

¶11

SMT. GANGAMMA AGED 63 YEARS W/O LATE NAGARAJU

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶14

SRI ANNAYAPPA C., AGED 61 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKA NARASAIAH

¶15

R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶16

SRI DEVANARASAIAH AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKA NARASAIAH

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI RAGHU PRASAD B.S.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SMT. NAGARATHANAMMA

¶24

AGED 40 YEARS D/O NAGARAJU

¶25

R/AT BYLAKONENAHALLI DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶26

SRI DHANANJAYA

¶27

AGED 37 YEARS S/O NAGARAJU C., R/AT SULIKERE VILLAGE AND POST, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 060.

¶28

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST

¶29

BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.06.2022 PASSED ON IA NO. 5 IN OS 759/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE–F AND ETC.,

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioners-defendant Nos.1(a), 3 to 5 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order passed by the concerned Court on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.759/2020 whereby, the concerned Court allows the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶39

Heard Sri.B.S.Raghuprasad, learned counsel

¶40

appearing for the petitioners.

¶41

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶42

(a) A suit in O.S.No.759/2020 is preferred seeking

¶43

partition and separate possession. After service of notice, it transpires that the defendants-petitioners have appeared and

¶44

filed their Written Statement denying the plaint averments. After the pleadings were complete, the concerned Court framed

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

issues and matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence. At the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff files an application in I.A.No.5 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint including a new property as Schedule 'F' bearing Khata No.93/93.

¶48

(b) The defendants filed their objections to the application contending that after lapse of four years of institution of the suit, an amendment is filed and the same is allowed. Notwithstanding the objections, it transpires that the concerned Court allows the application filed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the defendants are at the doors of this Court.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitionersdefendants would reiterate the objections filed before the concerned Court contending that the concerned Court could not have allowed the application seeking amendment of the plaint after a lapse of four years and framing of issues by the concerned Court. He would submit that the nature of the suit does change with the amended plaint.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶54

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material on record.

¶55

The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record.

¶56

What has driven the defendants before this Court is

¶57

allowing of an application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint by inclusion of a particular property in a suit for partition. The concerned Court by its order dated 24.10.2024 allows the application by the following order:

¶58

"OS. 759/2020

¶59

Called out again in second session. Counsel for Plaintiff present. Defendant side absent. Heard the counsel on IA No.5. The Plaintiff has filed IA No.5 U/o.6 Rule 17 of CPC to add schedule-F property and schedule 6 property with khatha No.93/3.

¶60

The learned counsel has contended that, initially he has filed the suit including the said property. Due to office objection that documents have not produced. He has deleted the same property and now, the Plaintiff has obtained the document and she wants to insert the said property and para. The Plaintiff has re-iterated the said contents in affidavit. Defendant No.2 and 3 have filed objection.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Defendant No.2 has contended that, after lapse of 5 years the IA is allowed and proposed amendments are not necessary and IA is not maintainable.

¶65

Defendant- No.3 has taken contention that the proposed property allotted to his share and it is his self acquired property and IA is not maintainable.

¶66

Admittedly, evidence not commenced. When posted for Plaintiff evidence, the Plaintiff has filed this IA. Whether the proposed property is self acquired property of defendant No.3 or not requires full fledged trail. As the Plaintiff had earlier deleted the property and now wants to implead the property on the basis of documents, I am of the opinion that, the objections are not sustainable. The proposed amendments are necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. Hence, the IA No.5 filed by the Plaintiff U/o.6 Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC on 11.06.2024 is hereby allowed.

¶67

The Plaintiff is permitted to carryout the amendment as per IA within 15 days.

¶68

For compliance and amended plaint by 05.12.2024."

¶69

The concerned Court holds that in a suit for partition, all the properties that belong to the family will have to be considered. Though the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence, issue whether the proposed property was a self-acquired property of the 3^rd defendant or otherwise will have to be considered at the trial. It is also noticed that the plaintiff had earlier made this property a part of the suit, deleted it and now again wanted to bring it in. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court does not suffer from any perversity for this Court to entertain

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:19509 WP No. 14338 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

the subject petition and stall further trial in O.S.No.759/2020.

¶74

While it is true that once the issues are framed and the matter progresses to a large extent, applications of this kind should not be permitted as that would only be to protract the proceedings. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, as the property was already a part of the suit, deleted and now being bought back, there is no warrant of interference at the hands of this Court.

¶75

The petition lacking in merits, stands rejected .

¶76

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶77

CBC

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Sri. Putta Narasaiah v. Smt. Nagarathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Putta Narasaiah v. Smt. Nagarathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.M. Adarsha Vs D.B. Vijay Kumar

Sri H S Subbaraya Sastry Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri H S Aswathanarayana Sastry

M/S Ishtika Homes Private Limited, Vs M/S Srm Builders and Developers

M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs the Registrar, City Civil Court

Sri. R. K. Madhvesh Vs Sri. T. R. Devaraj, Since Deceased by Lrs, Smt Padmaja

A Fayeez Ahmed Vs M/S a J Developers