Dismissed¶46

Smt N Kavitha v. R Ningappa Dead by Lrs

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2026WP/16868/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Lalitha Kanneganti J.; WP No. 16868 of 2026 (GM-CPC); decided 09.06.2026; amendment of pleadings; additional written statement; counter claim; belated application at defendant's-evidence stage; latches/prejudice to plaintiff; speedy disposal; O.S.No.558/2014 Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Chitradurga; I.A.No.19; suit for permanent and mandatory injunction; impleading of LRs; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court rightly considered that after the death of the deceased defendant enough opportunity was given to the defendants, and the application for amendment was filed only after cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. ¶42

Smt N Kavitha Vs R Ningappa Dead by Lrs — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's dismissal of I.A.No.19 in O.S.No.558/2014 (refusing leave to file an additional written statement and counter claim) should be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

No party can be permitted to cover up its lapses in evidence at a belated stage; allowing such an application would cause prejudice to the plaintiff.

¶42

Key takeaways

No explanation was forthcoming in the entire affidavit for why the application was not filed at the earliest point of time.ratio¶42
The plea of shock/illiteracy does not excuse the delay: the husband died in 2018 and even in 2020, when an opportunity was given, it was stated that they did not want to amend the written statement.ratio¶42
Belated applications of this nature cannot be entertained, as they impact speedy disposal of cases and cause prejudice to the other side.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227 by defendant No.1(a) challenging the order dated 24.04.2026 of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, dismissing I.A.No.19 in O.S.No.558/2014, by which she sought leave to file an additional written statement and a counter claim (asserting that the defendants' property is different from the suit schedule property and seeking injunction) at the stage of defendant's evidence, after cross-examining the plaintiffs' witnesses. The High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) held that sufficient opportunity had been afforded after the LRs of the deceased first defendant were impleaded in 2018; in 2020 the defendants had expressly declined to file any additional written statement; no explanation was offered in the affidavit for the delay; and permitting pleading amendments at such a belated stage would allow a party to cover up its lapses, prejudice the plaintiff and impede speedy disposal. The writ petition was dismissed and all pending interlocutory applications in the writ petition were closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16868 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT N.KAVITHA W/O LATE MANJAPPA @ BORE MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE

¶11

R/O CYCLE SHOP ESWARAPPA HOUSE, BURUJANAHATTY MAIN ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SAMEER S.N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

R. NINGAPPA DEAD BY LRS SMT. SHOWBAHGYAMMA W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE R/O OPP. VINAYAKA SCHOOL BURUJANAHATTY CHITRADURGA TOWN

¶17

SMT. DEVIKA D/O LATE NINGAPPA W/O ANAND K.C., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O OPP VINAYAKA SCHOOL

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BURUJANAHATTY, CHITRADURGA TOWN

¶22

SRI. R.N.MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O OPP. VINAYAKA SCHOOL BURUJANAHATTY, CHITRADURGA TOWN

¶23

SMT. VINODA D/O LATE NINGAPPA W/O GIRISH S.N., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE R/O MAMATHA NAGAR, BOMMANA KATTE SHIMOGA CITY

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A i.e., OS NO. 558/2014 DATED 24.04.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITRADURGA AND CONSEQUENTLY ACCEPT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT COUNTER CLAIM OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 (A) AND (b) DATED 28.02.2026.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.19 in O.S.No.558/2014 dated 24.04.2026 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chitradurga, the petitioner/defendant No.1(a) is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondents herein who are plaintiffs in the suit filed a suit for permanent injunction and later sought for the plea of mandatory injunction. In the year 2018, the first defendant died and his LRs were impleaded in the year 2018. When it came to the knowledge of the defendants that there is a discrepancy with regard to the suit schedule property shown in the plaint when it compared to the documents and these important aspects were not pleaded, they have filed a counter claim that the defendants' property is a different property and they require injunction in their favour. The Court by order impugned had dismissed the I.A.No.19 without even considering the fact that the husband of defendant No.1 died and the wife is in a complete shock and as she was not properly

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

guided, she could not file the application in time. It is submitted that in the interest of justice, the application may be allowed.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The order passed by the trial Court discloses that after bringing the LRs of deceased defendant No.1, the defendants were provided an opportunity for filing additional written statement. On 06.02.2020, the counsel for the defendant No.1(a) had submitted that they have no additional written statement to be filed on behalf of defendant No.1(a). But now they have come up with the present application contending that there are additional averments to be pleaded by them which are essential for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The application is filed at the stage of defendant's evidence and no specific grounds are stated in the application for seeking permission to file additional written statement at this stage. However, prior to filing of IA No.19, defendant Nos.1(a) and (b) have cross examined the witnesses on behalf of plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court has felt that at this stage the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:27741 WP No. 16868 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

amendment and also the counter claim cannot be allowed and dismissed the petition.

¶42

This Court having perused order of the trial court and is of the view that the court has rightly considered the fact that after the death of the deceased defendant, enough opportunity is given to the defendants. Now after cross examination of the plaintiff, the present application is filed seeking amendment of pleadings. No party can be permitted to cover up their latches in the evidence and at the belated stage, if this application is allowed it would cause lot of prejudice to the plaintiff. Further, no explanation is forthcoming in the entire affidavit for why they have not filed this application at the earliest point of time. The counsel’s submission that she is an illiterate lady and is under deep shock was not considered by Court. The husband died in the year 2018 and even in 2020 when an opportunity is given, it is stated that they do not want to amend the written statement. On these grounds, this Court cannot entertain the belated applications, which will have an impact on speedy disposal of the cases and cause prejudice to the other side. Accordingly, this court is passing the following:

¶43