Dismissed¶50

Smt Vanithabhai v. Sri T R Babusingh

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2026WP/18530/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Belated plaint amendment after conclusion of trial refused; Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC; no due diligence shown in amendment affidavit (only typographical error alleged); new fact of Will dated 01.04.1993 and additional properties (house and vacant site) sought; substitution of 'inheritance' with sale deeds dated 10.11.1980 and 13.04.1981; Article 227 writ dismissed; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; O.S.No.167/2016, II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru; partition suit, one-fourth share; WP No. 18530 of 2021 (GM-CPC); Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil; decided 25 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

The Trial Court is fully justified in rejecting the amendment application filed at a belated stage and without showing any due diligence. ¶47

Smt Vanithabhai Vs Sri T R Babusingh — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:31946 WP No. 18530 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 18530 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT VANITHABHAI D/O T.K.RAMASINGH W/O KUBER SINGH AGED 48 YEARS, R/O RAMASINGH COMPOUND, CHANNAPPANAPALYA, TUMAKURU - 572 107.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MANU SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI T R BABUSINGH

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

S/O LATE T.K.RAMASINGH AGED 52 YEARS, R/OUPPARAHALLI, TUMAKURU - 572 107.

¶18

SMT.PRAMEELA BAI W/O LATE GOPLAISNGH AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAPPANA PALYA, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN - 572 107.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31946 WP No. 18530 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT.HEMAVATHI BAI W/O BALAJI SINGH AGED 50 YEARS, R/O RAMASINGH COMPOUND, CHANNAPPANAPALYA, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN - 572 107.

¶22

SMT. VANISHREE W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MEDARA BEEDI KYATHASANDRA, TUMKURU TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT PIN - 572 107.

¶23

SRI. SANJANABAI S/O LATE GOPALASINGH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPTD BY HIS N/G MOTHER, PRAMILABAI AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAPPANA PALYA, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN - 572 107.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. AJAY SOHAN PINTO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3 AND R5 R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31946 WP No. 18530 of 2021

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-E IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 IN O.S.NO.167/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMKURU AND ALLOW THE IA NO.IX FILED BY THE PETITIONER APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.09.2021 passed on I.A.No.IX filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.167/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkuru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short).

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31946 WP No. 18530 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.167/2016 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the respondents have filed a detailed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint and specifically contending that the plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule properties. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues. The parties have led their evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments and the arguments were also advanced. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the respondents. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, rejected I.A.No.IX filed by the plaintiff.

¶37

It is to be noticed that in the proposed amendment, the plaintiff intended to delete the word “inheritance” and in its place sought to insert “two

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31946 WP No. 18530 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

registered sale deeds dated 10.11.1980 and 13.04.1981 in the name of wife Rangamma and got changed the revenue records in her name and” in paragraph No.2 of the plaint. Further, the plaintiff intended to bring on record a new fact with regard to the Will dated 01.04.1993. The plaintiff also sought to insert additional properties, namely, a house and a vacant site, to the plaint.

¶41

It is also to be noticed that such a new fact, as well as the change in stand from seeking to delete the word ‘inheritance’ and substitute it with ‘two sale deeds’, is sought at the fag end of the proceedings, that too after the conclusion of the trial, and hence, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the application.

¶42

A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application seeking amendment does not disclose any due diligence on the part of the plaintiff. It only indicates that due to a typographical error and mistake, some words were left out in the plaint.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:31946 WP No. 18530 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46