Sri Manjunath a Vs Smt Jayalakshmamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Manjunath a Vs Smt Jayalakshmamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in part: the order dated 24.09.2025 of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.6014/1997 is set aside; the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed only to the extent of amendment incorporating paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e); parties are at liberty to lead further evidence to be completed within one month; plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) to submit blood samples for avuncular DNA profiling; trial Court to expedite disposal within the one-year outer limit and may impose exemplary costs for unnecessary adjournments or delay.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly rejected the defendants' application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement by incorporating paragraph Nos.2(a) to 2(g) at the stage of recording of evidence, and if not, to what extent the amendment should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

The paragraphs sought to be incorporated (including paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e)) take a defence that the suit is not maintainable, that the plaintiffs are total strangers and not coparceners who must establish relationship and obtain declaratory relief; paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e) would not alter the earlier defence taken by the defendants nor effect the case of the plaintiffs, and issues Nos.1 to 7 framed by the trial Court already deal with some of these contentions.

Ratio / Principle

Since this Court has remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with avuncular DNA profiling and recording of evidence, there is no legal impediment in allowing the amendment application partly to the extent of paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e), and it would cause no hardship to the plaintiffs/respondents.

Key takeaways

On the application being filed at the stage of evidence and the matter having been remanded, it becomes necessary for the trial Court to allow the application and restrict the amendment to paragraph 2(d) and paragraph 2(e) in the written statement; it is for the parties to lead evidence and proceed further.ratio¶64
The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.6014/1997 is set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is consequently allowed only with regard to the amendment to the extent of paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e).ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Amendment of written statement — Order VI Rule 17 / Order 6 Rule 17 CPC — application at the stage of recording of evidence, after remand. Petitioners (defendant Nos.1(b) and 1(c)) in partition suit O.S.No.6014/1997 challenged the trial Court's order dated 24.09.2025 rejecting their application to amend the additional written statement by incorporating paragraph Nos.2(a) to 2(g). Counsel restricted the prayer to paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. Held: the impugned paragraphs assert that the suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs are total strangers and not coparceners who must establish relationship and seek declaratory relief; paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e) would not alter the earlier defence nor affect the plaintiffs' case, and issues Nos.1 to 7 already deal with such contentions; given the remand in RFA No.2523/2007 for fresh adjudication with avuncular DNA profiling (permitted under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC), there was no legal impediment and no hardship to the plaintiffs in allowing the amendment confined to paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e). Petition allowed in part; impugned order set aside; amendment allowed only to the said extent; evidence to be completed within one month; blood samples of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) for avuncular DNA profiling to be submitted without delay; trial Court to expedite disposal within the one-year limit and may impose exemplary costs for delay.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 30888 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI MANJUNATH A SON OF LATE. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCCUPATION MILK VENDING BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NO.1726/1, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA, 3RD DIVISION, OPPOSITE VENKATESHWARA TALKIES, BENGALURU-560 064

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.130/A, RAMANNA BUILDING, SANTHE CIRCLE, OPPOSITE BDK CHOULTRY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064

SRI.KUMAR.A. SON OF LATE. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCCUPATION PRIVATE SERVICE, RESIDING AT NO.1726/1, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA, 3RD DIVISION, OPPOSITE VENKATESHWARA TALKIES, BENGALURU-560 064

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.130/A, RAMANNA BUILDING, SANTHE CIRCLE,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

OPPOSITE BDK CHOULTRY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. N. K. KANTHARAJU., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF RATHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN RESIDING AT BANGALORE MANGALORE ROAD, OPPOSITE O PRUTHVI TALKIES, HASSAN 573 201.

SMT. ANJINAMMA WIFE OF RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, RESIDING AT SANTHEPETE CIRCLE, BEHIND AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, JAKKUR ROAD, YELAHANKA TOWN, BENGALURU -560 064.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ.N.DAMODAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.6014/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the First Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.6014/1997 whereby rejected the application filed by the petitioners under order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of additional written statement in O.S.NO.6014/1997.

Parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants. Petitioners are the defendant No.1(b) and defendant No.1(c), and respondents are the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court.

The suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the defendants, the petitioners herein i.e., defendant No.1(b) and defendant No.1(c)

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

passed away and the mother of the defendants also died during the pendency of the suit. The suit came to be dismissed, pursuant to which, plaintiff No.1 preferred Regular First Appeal in RFA.No.2523/2007 before this Court.

This Court after considering the arguments put

forth by learned counsel for both the parties, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff No.1, set aside the judgment of the trial Court of dismissal and remitted back the matter before the trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made by this Court and also allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 and permitted the defendants to file additional written statement in view of allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC so also the application filed under 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC.

In view of allowing 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, this Court directed the trial Court to secure plaintiff Nos.1 and respondent No.1(b) to submit their

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling and subsequent orders were passed directing the plaintiffs to adduce their further evidence so also the defendants in view of the observations and to consider the DNA report of the parties. This Court also directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of one year since suit is of the year 1997.

Pursuant to the order, the matter was remitted back to the trial Court, defendants filed an application seeking to file additional written statement. Defendants filed an additional written statement on 10.07.2025 and thereafter they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment to the written statement to incorporate certain paragraphs in the written statement at the stage of recording of evidence.

The stage was set down for recording of evidence of the defendants, at that stage, this application came to be filed. Though the defendants filed the application to incorporate paragraph No.2(a) to 2(g), the

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

trial Court without considering the said application, has rejected the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners i.e., defendant Nos.1(b) and 1(c) are before this Court.

At this stage of the arguments, learned counsel

for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1(b) and 1(c) submits that he would restrict his prayer to for amendment of the written statement only to the extent of the paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e) filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and would not insist on the other paragraphs as sought for incorporation as mentioned in additional written statement.

On the careful perusal of the paragraphs that sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, it is seen that the certain defense is taken with regard to the suit being not maintainable and that the plaintiffs are total strangers and not coparceners and the plaintiffs will have

to establish the relationship primarily and obtain declaratory relief that they are the children of deceased Ammayyamma W/o Subbarayappa. In the absence of such

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

a relief, the suit for partition and separate possession is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. Further it is stated that the plaintiffs are total strangers have no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.

Apparently, it is seen that these two paragraphs i.e., paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e) would not alter the earlier defense taken by the defendants so also it could not effect the case of the plaintiffs. It is also seen that issues are framed by the trial Court as issue Nos.1 to 7 which deals with some of the contentions taken by the defendants in the amendment that is sought.

In view of the fact that this Court has remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication and evidence to be recorded on the basis of allowing of application under Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC for the purpose of collecting blood samples and conducting an avuncular DNA profiling and evidence of the parties to be recorded, I do not find any legal impediment in the application being allowed

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

partly to the extent of allowing the amendment at paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e). It would however not cause any hardship to the plaintiffs as no hardship would be cause to the respondents.

Under the circumstances, on the application being filed at the stage of evidence and having remanded the matter, it becomes necessary for the trial Court to allow the application and restrict the amendment to the paragraph 2(d) and paragraph 2(e) in the written statement. It is for the parties to lead evidence and proceed further in the matter.

In view of the direction already having being given by this Court in RFA proceedings, to dispose of the matter within a period of one year, the trial Court shall expedite the matter and dispose of the matter as early as possible without waiting for the fag end period of one year.

Accordingly, I pass the following order.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

The petition is allowed in part.

The order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the I

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.6014/1997 is hereby set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is consequently allowed insofar as only with regard to the amendment to the extent of paragraph Nos.2(d) and 2(e).

Parties are at liberty to lead further evidence. However, the plaintiffs or the defendants shall complete their evidence within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1(b) shall be subject to submit their blood samples for conducting an avuncular DNA profiling as opined by this Court in Regular First Appeal without any further delay.

It is made clear that any unnecessary

adjournments and delay caused by either of the parties

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42926 WP No. 30888 of 2025

HC-KAR

shall be viewed seriously and the trial Court is at liberty to

impose exemplary cost on either of the parties.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3