S M Naveen Kumar Vs S P Vinayakumar

SMT. S.M. SHEELA, W/O CHARAN, D/O LATE S.G.MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIDDAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572141.

¶23

SMT. ANASUYA, W/O C. ASHWATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT KONANAKUNTE CROSS, NEAR DEEPA BEAUTY PARLOUR, VASANTHAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶24

SMT.JAYALAKSHMI, W/O K.T. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT VIDYANAGARA, NEAR GANAPATHI PARK, BEHIND RTO OFFICE, TUMAKURU - 572 102.

¶25

M. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O S.G MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT HONNAPURA DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKUR - 572 141.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.01.2026 ON I.A.NO.XIX, UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC, IN OS NO.76/2016 PASSED BY THE

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7633 WP No. 3173 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶34

"a) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ and quash the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 on I.A.No.XIX under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, in O.S.No.76/2016, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri at Annexure-E.

¶35

b) To grant any such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant including the costs in the interest of justice."

¶36

This petition is filed by defendant No.5 in O.S.No.76/2016, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.XIX, whereby the said application filed by the

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:7633 WP No. 3173 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶42

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1/ plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant No.5 and other defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner and other defendants, parties adduced evidence and at the stage of reply arguments they filed the instant application which was allowed by the trial Court permitting the plaintiff to incorporate such amendment.

¶43

Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court permitting/allowing amendment to the plaint, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶44

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has come to the correct and proper conclusion that the proposed amendment is relevant and necessary to adjudicate upon the issues in controversy between the parties and the same would

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7633 WP No. 3173 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

not in any way change or alter the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action. In this context it is pertinent to note that the issue/question as to whether the proposed amendment would be barred by limitation or not can be addressed and the right of the petitioner/defendant No.5 can be safe guarded by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing the amendment application which was filed on 28.10.2025 by leaving open the issue regarding limitation at the time of disposal of the suit.

¶48

Under these circumstances, in the light of the principle governing amendment of pleadings as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar v Ayyakannu and Ors. – reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369, L.C. Hanumanthappa v H.B. Shivakumar , reported in (2016) 1 SCC 332, Life Insurance Corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors, reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256, Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors, reported in 2024 INSC 726 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammed Rafi & Another Vs. Bandenawaz & others – W.P.No.108512/2025

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:7633 WP No. 3173 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

dated 16.12.2025 , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423.

¶53

Accordingly, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) Writ Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶56

(ii) The application filed by the plaintiff for amendment stands allowed subject to the condition that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing the amendment application which was filed on 28.10.2025 and the question of

¶57

limitation is kept open to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit.

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:7633 WP No. 3173 of 2026

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint.

¶62

(iv) The trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

SD/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶64

MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

S M Naveen Kumar v. S P Vinayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S M Naveen Kumar v. S P Vinayakumar

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

Sri.Kalappa Vs the Pdo

N B Viswanatha Vs City Institute

Smt. Jagadamba Vs Sri. Manjunatha

Indramma Vs Nagamma

Kum.H.Supriya Vs S Krishnappa

Mandya Jilla Kurubara Sangha Vs Puttaswamy