Dismissed¶83

Smt.Haneefabi v. Mohammed Yousuff

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025WP/2912/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC-KAR Bengaluru; WP No. 2912 of 2022 (GM-CPC); Article 227 Constitution of India; writ against order dated 11.11.2021 on I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.16 of 2016, Civil Judge & JMFC Sringeri; partition and separate possession suit; amendment of plaint schedule under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC; amendment did not alter nature of suit or cause of action; belatedness countered by costs; reliance on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1128; liberal approach to amendments to avoid multiplicity of litigation; writ petition dismissed; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; decided 12 December 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition challenging the trial Court's order allowing the amendment application was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration. ¶83

Smt.Haneefabi Vs Mohammed Yousuff — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition challenging the trial Court's order allowing the amendment application was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 11.11.2021 allowing I.A.No.XI (amendment of the plaint schedule under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) in O.S.No.16 of 2016 calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶69

Court's answer

In view of the above (including the Supreme Court's observation favouring a liberal approach to amendments to avoid multiplicity of litigation), the order impugned does not call for interference, and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶82

Ratio / Principle

The proposed amendment seeks only corrections in the schedule of the plaint regarding the description of the properties, and will not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action.

¶76

Key takeaways

The sole objection of the contesting defendants was the belated filing of the amendment application, and the trial Court addressed this by imposing appropriate costs on the plaintiffs while allowing I.A.No.XI.ratio¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), W.P. No. 2912 of 2022 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, decided on 12.12.2025 (S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.). Contesting defendants challenged the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sringeri allowing the plaintiffs' I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.16/2016 (a suit for partition and separate possession) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint schedule. The Court held that the proposed amendment effected only corrections to the description of the scheduled properties and did not change the nature of the suit or its cause of action; the only objection, belated filing, had been adequately dealt with by the trial Court through imposition of costs. Reliance was placed on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1128, that Courts should be liberal in permitting amendments so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The writ petition was dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52907 WP No. 2912 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 2912 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. HANEEFABI W/O LATE IBRAHAIM SABHE AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS RESIDENT OF KINIKINIO HEMMANAE (MASIDI GUDDE) SRINGERI TQ - 577 139 SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶9

SMT SHAKILABI W/O LATE SHEIK ABHMAED AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶10

SMT. RAMALATH W/O SHEIK AHMED AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶11

SHASHID

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O LATE SHEIKAHMED AND RAMALATH AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS A MINOR REP BY THROUGH HIS MINOR GUARDIAN SMT. RAMALATH

¶14

SHAMRI

¶15

D/O LATE SHEIKH AHMED AND RAMALATH AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS A MINOR, REPRESENTED THORUGH HER MINOR GUARDIAN SMT. RAMALATH.

¶16

SMT. KARHIRUNNISA W/O LATE BASHEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:52907 WP No. 2912 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

FHAZIL

¶21

S/O LATE BASHEER AHMED AGED ABOU 25 YEARS.

¶22

FOUZIA

¶23

D/O LATE BASHEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶24

SAJIYA D/O LATE BASHEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶25

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KINIKNI HEMMANE (MASIDI GUDDE) SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI JAGADEESH D.C, ADV.) AND:

¶28

MR. MOHAMMED YOUSUFF S/O LATE PEERU SAHEB AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS RESIDENT OF BHAKATAMAPURA IN SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKKAMGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED HEREIN HIS GPA HOLDER MR. ABDUL AZEEZ S/O MOHAMMED YOSUUFF AGED 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF BHAKTAMAPURA IN SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶29

1. KHARUNNISA

¶30

W/O LATE MOHAMMED YOUSUFF AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/O BHAKTAMPURA SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139.

¶31

MR. ABDUL AZZEZ S/O LATE MOHAMMED YOUSUFF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52907 WP No. 2912 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

R/O BHAKTAMPURA SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139.

¶35

SMT. SUFIYABI D/O LATE MOHAMMED YOUSUFF AND W/O SAYYAD NOORULLA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O BHAKTAMPURA SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139.

¶36

SMT. DILSAHD BANU D/O LATE MOHAMMED YOUSUFF AND W/O ARIFKHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF BHAKTAMPURA SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139.

¶37

SMT. SHARIBI D/O LATE IBRAHIM SAHEB AND W/O LATE HAYATH SAHEB AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O BHAKTAMPURA SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139.

¶38

SMT. MAQBOOL @ MALLIKA D/O LT IBRAHIM SAHEB AND W/O KUTA ALAM AGED 53 YEARS R/O KALMETTU SRINGERI TOWN SRINGER TQ 577139 SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶39

MR KOTRALMA H/O LATE MAQBOOL @ MALLIKA AGED ABOUT 65 YERS.

¶40

MR. BALAN RAJ S/O KOTRALAM & MAQBOOL @ MALLIKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶41

MR. KANNAN S/O KOTRALAM & MAQBOOL @ MALLIKA

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52907 WP No. 2912 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶45

SMT. BANU D/O KOTRALAM & MAQBOO @ MALLIKA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶46

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KALMETLU IN SRINGERI TOWN SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139.

¶47

SMT. ZAREENA D/O LATE IBRAHIMI SAHEB & W/O LATE ADAM SAHEB AGED 50 YEARS R/O KINIKNI HEMMANE (MASIDI GUDDE SRINGERI TQ - 577 139.

¶48

SMT. PARVEEN D/O LATE IBRAHIM SAHEB AND W/O AMEER AHMED AGED 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF KALKATTE MENASE VILALGE SRINGERI TQ - 577 139.

¶49

SMT. AMEENA D/O LATE IBRAHIM SAHEB AND W/OLT PEERU SAHEB AGED 39 YEARS R/O BHAKATMPURA ROAD SRINGER TQ 577139.

¶50

SMT. NOORJAHAN D/O LATE IBRHAIM SAHEB AND W/O MOHAMMED RAFEEQ AGED 37 YEARS.

¶51

MR. MUNAWAR S/O ALTE MOHAMEMD MASTAN AGED 54 YEARS OCC DRIVER SALAL MANAZIL BUDDANAGAR

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52907 WP No. 2912 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

3RD CORSS NEAR GANESH RICE MILL SHIVAMOGA - 577 201.

¶55

MR. RIYAZA S/O LT MOHAMMED MASTAN AGED 52 YEARS OCC DRIVER SALAL MANZIL BUDDANAGARA 3RD CROSS , NEAR GANESH RICE MILL SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶56

SMT. ZABEENA D/O LT MOHAMMED MASTAN W/O MOHAMMED IQBAL AGED 50 YEARS TIPPU NAGAR, 6TH CROSS LEFT SIDE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶57

SMT. NASEEMA D/O LATE MOHAMMED MASTAN W/O ABULD BAHSEER AGED 48 YEARS SAGAR MANZIL, TIPPUNAGAR 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶58

SMT. MUBEENA @ RASHEEDA BANU D/O LT MOHAMMED MASTAN W/O MOHAMMED AZAM AGED 46 YEARS R/O DEVARAMANE HARIHARAPURA KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 126.

¶59

SMT. RIHANA @ KAHTIZA D/O LT MOHAMMED MASTAN W/O LT FAYAZ AHMED AGED 45 YEARS TIPPUNAGAR, 5TH CROSS LEFT SIDE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:52907 WP No. 2912 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

SMT. PARZANA @ KHUTEZA D/O LT MOHAMMED MASTAN W/O ABUDL ABEED AGED 45 YEARS TIPPU NAGAR, 5TH CROSS LEFT SIDE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶64

…RESPONDENTS

¶65

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE ON HAND FROM THE FILE OF TRIAL COURT IN OS.NO.16/2016 AND PERSUE THE SAME.

¶66

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

¶67

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶68

ORAL ORDER

¶69

Defendants are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.11.2021 passed on I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.16 of 2016 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Sringeri.

¶70

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶71

petitioner.

¶72

Suit in O.S.No.16 of 2016 is filed before the jurisdictional civil Court, Sringeri seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. When the suit was at the stage of recording evidence of the plaintiffs, I.A.No.XI was filed under

¶73

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52907 WP No. 2912 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by the plaintiffs with a prayer to permit the plaintiffs to amend the schedule of the plaint. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objections. The trial Court, vide the order impugned has allowed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the contesting defendants are before this Court.

¶76

Perusal of the prayer made in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiffs would go to show that the proposed amendment in the said application is to make certain corrections in the schedule of the plaint regarding the description of the properties. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. The only objection raised by the contesting defendants to the prayer made in I.A. No.XI is that the said application was belatedly filed. The Trial Court having appreciated the same has imposed appropriate costs on the plaintiffs while allowing I.A.No.XI.

¶77

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022) SCC

¶78

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:52907 WP No. 2912 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

ONLINE SC 1128 has observed that the Courts should be liberal while considering application for amendment so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

¶82

Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for interference.

¶83

Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶84

Pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of.

¶85

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶86

NMS

¶87

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Smt.Haneefabi v. Mohammed Yousuff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Haneefabi v. Mohammed Yousuff

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. C Mohan Sonu Vs Sri. H R Chandra @ Ramachnadra

Govindappa Vs Sri Rangappa

Smt Geetha Ramesh Vs Sri Goolaiah

C K Shilpashree Vs Yashowdamma

M/S Casablanca Estate Vs Mohammed Mukarram @ M S Mukarram

Hedwig Rego Vs Sri D Prakash Kumar