Allowed¶58

Smt Savithramma v. Late Sri Pujar Hanumanthaiah Dead by Lrs

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026WP/20324/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaint amendment; Order VI Rule 17; Section 151 CPC; Article 227 writ petition; GM-CPC; Civil Judge and JMFC Koratagere; Tumkur; O.S.95/2015; partition and separate possession; interlocutory application rejected; pre-trial amendment allowed as a matter of course; additional written statement; grave error; no opinion on merits; Vijaykumar A. Patil; Savithramma v. LRs of Pujar Hanumanthaiah.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.09.2021 of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koratagere in O.S.No.95/2015 set aside; petitioner-plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC allowed; plaintiff to file amended plaint within three weeks and defendants to file written statement, if any, within three weeks thereafter; no opinion expressed on merits; no order as to costs. ¶58

Smt Savithramma Vs Late Sri Pujar Hanumanthaiah… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court acted correctly in rejecting the petitioner-plaintiff's interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint in O.S.95/2015, which the writ petition under Article 227 seeks to set aside and reverse. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The trial Court committed a grave error in rejecting the amendment application by recording reasons on the merits of the case with regard to the entitlement of share of the defendants.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Since the proposed amendment was sought at the initial stage of the proceedings, i.e., even before commencement of the trial, it ought as a matter of course to have been allowed, permitting the defendants to file additional written statement, if any.

¶53

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J) — W.P. No.20324/2021 (GM-CPC) under Article 227: Writ allowed; order dated 20.09.2021 of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Koratagere rejecting the plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint in O.S.95/2015 (suit for partition and separate possession) set aside. Held: where the proposed amendment is sought at the initial stage of proceedings, i.e., before commencement of trial, it ought as a matter of course to be allowed, permitting defendants to file additional written statement; the trial Court erred in adjudicating the merits of the parties' shares while rejecting the amendment. Amended plaint to be filed within 3 weeks; defendants' written statement, if any, within 3 weeks thereafter; no opinion expressed on merits; no costs.

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37496 W.P. No.20324/2021

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010420162021

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20324/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT KELSETKUNTE BRAMHASANDRA POST, KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK 572212.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.B. ANIRUDH, ADV., FOR SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER AND SRI. P.D. SUBRAMANYA, ADVS.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

LATE SRI. PUJAR HANUMANTHAIAH DEAD BY LR’S.

¶14

SMT. SAKAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT BORAPPANAHATTI TOVINAKERE POST CHANNARAYANADURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572138.

¶15

SRI. HANUMANTH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT BORAPPANAHATTI

¶16

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:37496 W.P. No.20324/2021

¶19

CNR: KAHC010420162021

¶20

TOVINAKERE POST CHANNARAYANADURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572138.

¶21

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O SRI. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O BORAPPANAHATTI TOVINAKERE POST CHANNARAYANADURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572138.

¶22

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O BORAPPANAHATTI TOVINAKERE POST CHANNARAYANADURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572138.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIPATI, ADV., FOR R1 & R2 V/O/DTD:16.12.2021, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 & R4 STAND WAIVED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KORATAGERE IN O.S.95/2015 ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED ON 21.01.2021 BY THE PETITIONER, AND REVERSE THE SAME & ETC.

¶26

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:37496 W.P. No.20324/2021

¶29

CNR: KAHC010420162021

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

“(i) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or order of like nature setting aside the order dated 20.09.2021 (vide Annexure-A) passed by the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC at Koratagere in OS 95/2015 on Interlocutory Application filed on 21.01.2021 by the Petitioner, and reverse the same;

¶35

(ii) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.”

¶36

2. Heard Sri.M.B.Anirudh, Sri.Mohammed

¶37

Shameer and Sri.P.D.Subramanya, learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri.Lakshmipati, learned counsel for the

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:37496 W.P. No.20324/2021

¶41

CNR: KAHC010420162021

¶42

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material available on record.

¶43

The petitioner filed O.S.No.95/2015 seeking prayer for a judgment and decree against the defendants declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties and further declaration that various sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5 are not binding on the plaintiff in respect of her legitimate ½ share in the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants filed written statement. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the issues and thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objection. The trial Court under the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the suit is for

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37496 W.P. No.20324/2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

CNR: KAHC010420162021

¶47

partition and separate possession and if the amendment is

¶48

allowed it would become a suit for declaration and possession, which is impermissible and the cause of action shown in the plaint would change and further the children of Hanumakka are defendant Nos.2 to 4 and if the sale deeds are held as void, the defendant No.1 and Hanumakka would become absolute owners of the suit schedule properties, which cannot be allowed.

¶49

It is required to be noticed that the proposed amendment is filed by the plaintiff after the death of defendant No.1, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff, by contending that the plaintiff would be entitled to entire share of Pujar Hanumanthaiah i.e., the suit schedule property. Be that as it may, the trial Court rejected the said application by recording the reasons on the merits of the case with regard to the entitlement of share of the defendants. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in recording the reasons that the

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37496 W.P. No.20324/2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

CNR: KAHC010420162021

¶53

defendant Nos.2 to 4 also would be entitled to share in the property. It is required to be noticed that the proposed amendment sought is at the initial stage of the proceedings i.e., even before the commencement of the trial. Hence, as a matter of course, the proposed amendment ought to have been allowed by permitting the defendants to file additional written statement, if any.

¶54

For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to

¶55

pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶58

ii. The impugned order dated 20.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.95/2015 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koratagere is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner-plaintiff’s application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed.

¶59

iii. The plaintiff shall file amended plaint within a period of (03) weeks from the date of receipt

¶60

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:37496 W.P. No.20324/2021

¶63

CNR: KAHC010420162021

¶64

of copy of this order. And thereafter, the defendants shall file their written statement, if any, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of filing of amended plaint.

¶65

iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶66

No order as to costs.

¶67

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶68

BSR

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt Savithramma v. Late Sri Pujar Hanumanthaiah Dead by Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Savithramma v. Late Sri Pujar Hanumanthaiah Dead by Lrs

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

Sri.K. Srinivasappa Vs C.N.Mohan

Smt. Jabeen Taj Vs Sri Somashekar a

J Premakumari Vs Smt Chikkamma

B E Madhukumar @ B E Madhu Vs B Kalleshappa S/O Bommanna

B E Madhukumar @ B E Madhu Vs B Kalleshappa

N. B. Nagaraj Vs M. Siddappa