Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Smt. Shahanu Banu. S

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O. LATE OBALAPPA, W/O. KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. BOODENAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, KARNATAKA – 572 127

¶10

NOW RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUGODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. KARNATAKA – 561 208

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI ASHWATHAPPA, S/O. LATE OBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶13

SRI RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE OBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶14

PETITIONERS NO.2 & 3 R/O BOODENAHALLI VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, KARNATAKA – 561 208

¶15

NOW RESIDING AT DODDAKURUGODU VILLAGE, VIDURA COLONY,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:8493 WP No. 22973 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 561 208

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. B. M. HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SMT. SHAHANU BANU S., W/O D. SIDDAPPA @ SIDDIQI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. DODDAMALURU VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 572 127

¶24

NOW RESIDING AT AMARAJYOTHINAGARA, NEAR S.G.R. LADIES HOSTEL, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, AMARAJYOTHINAGARA, TUMAKURU TOWN – 572 105.

¶25

SRI ANJINAPPA, S/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶26

SMT. KALAVATHI, W/O. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶27

SRI MANJUNATHA, S/O. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KORACHIGARA HATTI, BEHIND PANCHAYATHI OFFICE, KODIGENAHALLI, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, KARNATAKA – 572 127.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. PRADEEP M., ADVOCATE FOR C / R1;

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:8493 WP No. 22973 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶35

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 12.06.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI ON I.A.NO. 6 IN O.S.NO. 351/2022 ANNX-A.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

This petition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.351/2022 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.6 whereby the said application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected by the trial Court.

¶40

Heard Learned counsel for the petitioners, Learned counsel for respondent No.1-defendant No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶41

Since the remaining respondents-defendants did not oppose the instant application and no relief is sought for against them, notice to the remaining respondent Nos.2 to 4 is dispensed with for the purpose of the present petition and order.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:8493 WP No. 22973 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for declaration of title, rectification and permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit is being contested by the respondents-defendants. After commencement of trial, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings by way of paragraph No.3 after paragraph No.5 of the plaint and an additional prayer in the prayer column inter alia contending that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.322/2020 passed in favour of the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 was not binding upon the petitioners. The said application having been opposed by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1, the Trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which the petitioners-plaintiffs is before this court by way of the present petition.

¶46

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial court failed to consider

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:8493 WP No. 22973 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

and appreciate that the proposed amendment was necessary, relevant and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and that the same would not change or alter the nature and character of the suit. On the other hand, the Trial Court has erroneously adverted to the merits/demerits of the rival contentions while considering the instant application for amendment, which is impermissible in law as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors – AIR 2006 SC 164. So also, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate that in the light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of Sampath Kumar v Ayyakannu and Ors. – AIR 2002 SC 3369 and L.C. Hanumanthappa v H.B. Shivakumar – (2016) 1 SCC 332, the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned from the date of filing the amendment application i.e.,11.02.2025, by leaving open the question of limitation to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit.

¶51

In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India v

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:8493 WP No. 22973 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors -– AIR 2022 SC 4256

¶56

and Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. 2024 INSC 726 and also the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025 dated 16.12.2025 . (Dharwad Bench), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court declining amendment has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶57

In the result, I pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶60

(ii) The impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.351/2022 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, is hereby set aside.

¶61

(iii) Consequently, I.A.No.6 is allowed, subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned from the date of filing amendment application i.e., 11.02.2025.

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:8493 WP No. 22973 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

(iv) The question of limitation is kept open to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶66

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents-

¶67

defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions including limitation.

¶68

(vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶69

(vii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on

¶70

merits, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶71

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶72

BMC

¶73

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Smt. Lakshmamma v. Smt. Shahanu Banu. S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lakshmamma v. Smt. Shahanu Banu. S

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

Smt Siddagangamma Vs B Rangaswamaiah

Smt. Manjula K L Vs Smt. B J Prema

Sri.Manjunatha Vs Smt.Jayalakshmamma

Sri. R Somashekara Reddy Vs Sri. Muniraju M

Quantum Investment Partners Llc Vs M/S Durga Shree Heights Pvt. Ltd.

Accel India Management LLP Vs Ankit Arora