Sri Nagesh N Vs Smt. Asha N

SRI NAGESH N., S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT PAILWAN SUBBANNA BUILDING, GARE LAYOUT, WARD NO.23, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 110

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. ASHA N., D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE-560 024

¶16

SRI. N. ANAND S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT SEEKAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, VISWANATHAPURA POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:28191 WP No. 3205 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. N. MUNEGOWDA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SEEKAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, VISWANATHAPURA POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M. JAGANNATH ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DATED: 17/02/2026)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 08.01.2026 ONE PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVENAHALLI PASSED ON I.A.NOS.9, 11, 12 AND 13, IN O.S.NO.364/2017 FOUND AT ANNEXURE A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.IX, XI, XII and XIII in O.S.No.364/2017 dated 08.01.2026 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, the petitioner/ defendant No.3 is before this Court.

¶28

The respondent No.1 herein had filed O.S.No.364/2017 seeking relief of partition. After service of the summons, the defendant No.3/petitioner herein has filed the written

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28191 WP No. 3205 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

statement on 15.09.2018. On 16.01.2023, the plaintiff had filed

¶32

an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking deletion of paragraph No.5 of the plaint and to add paragraph No.5(a) to 5(c) in its place and she had also requested for deletion of item No.1 and 5 of the plaint schedule properties and sought for inclusion of seven more properties to the suit schedule properties. To that, the petitioner herein had filed their statement of objections. On 16.01.2024, the plaintiff had filed one more application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for insertion of paragraph No.6(a) after paragraph No.6 of the plaint and for inclusion of another property as item No.15 and the petitioner herein had filed the objections. On 30.08.2024, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.12 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, seeking impleadment of defendant No.15 who is the wife of the petitioner. On 30.08.2024, the plaintiff filed another application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint i.e., for insertion of paragraph No.7(a) and 7(b) after paragraph No.7 and also sought to include three more properties by contending that defendant No.3 and his wife has purchased item No.16 to 18.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28191 WP No. 3205 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The trial Court had allowed these applications by order

¶36

impugned and the plaintiff was permitted to carry out the amendments as sought in I.A.Nos.IX, XI and XIII and was also permitted to implead the proposed defendant as defendant No.15 as prayed in I.A.No.XII. While allowing the applications, the trial Court had framed issues which read as follows:

¶37

i. “Whether the proposed amendments as sought in I.A.No.9, 11 and 13 are necessary to decide the real question in controversy between the parties?”

¶38

ii. Whether the proposed defendant No.15 is the necessary party?

¶39

iii. What order?”

¶40

In paragraph Nos.8 to 11 of the impugned order, the trial Court had discussed about the respective cases of the parties. Then when it comes to paragraph No.12, the trial Court observed that as stated herein above, with respect to correction of the name of the parties, defendant No.3 has no objections. One of the amendments is that correction of plaintiff’s mother’s name and also the village name. The same are necessary to be corrected. Without corrections, a decree cannot be drawn effectively. In paragraph No.13, the trial Court discusses about the contentions of the parties with regard to

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28191 WP No. 3205 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

I.A.No.12. Then at paragraph No.14, the trial Court observed that defendant No.3 has contended that the applications are filed once the issues have been framed. Admittedly, none of the parties have lead their side of evidence. Hence, it is just and necessary to allow all the applications filed by the plaintiff. The proposed amendments are necessary to decide the real question in controversy between the parties. Accordingly, the trial Court had allowed the application.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.3 submits that the plaintiff had filed applications for amendment of plaint on various dates and the said applications are numbered as I.A.Nos.9, 11 and 13. The plaintiff by virtue of I.A.No.9 had requested the trial Judge for deletion of paragraph No.5 of the plaint and requested to add paragraph No.5(a) to 5(c) in its place and for additional prayer for declaration, to declare the partition effected on 04.11.1998 as not binding. The said application is filed after lapse of seven years from the date of presentation of the plaint. The proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff was not an event subsequent to filing of the suit. It is submitted that the learned Judge had committed

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28191 WP No. 3205 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

an illegality in allowing I.A.No.9 and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the admission, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the impugned order would call for interference at the hands of this Court. It is also submitted that

¶48

the proposed defendant had purchased item No.18 of the property indicated in I.A.No.3 under a Sale Deed dated 08.08.2023 which was her separate property. The trial Court without even considering whether the proposed defendant was a member of the joint family has mechanically allowed the application which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. I.A.Nos.11 and 13 are filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff by filing I.A.No.11 had requested the trial Court to include a quarry which was leased by the Government in favour of defendant No.3 on 05.11.2020 as one

¶49

of the joint family properties, the trial Court mechanically allowed the said application without analysing whether it is joint family property or otherwise and allowed the application. When it comes to I.A.No.13, the plaintiff has sought to include item No.16 to 18 of the properties purchased by defendant No.3 under two separate Sale Deeds dated 11.08.2022 and 08.07.2008 which are his separate properties. Without any

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28191 WP No. 3205 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

finding on all these aspects, the trial Court had allowed these applications without any reasoning and the same needs to be set aside.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ plaintiff has argued how the order passed by the trial Court does not change the nature of the suit and how it is justified in passing the order and he has drawn the attention of this Court to the written statement and also made lengthy submissions. It is submitted that no interference is required with the impugned proceedings.

¶54

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed in the year 2017. Several applications are filed seeking amendment of the pleadings, for deleting the earlier pleadings, to implead the purchaser etc. This Court has perused the order passed by the trial Court. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted several reasons, by way of argument. How the order is correct, unfortunately the learned Judge has not given any reason why he has allowed the application. Considering the several applications that are filed, the trial Court has not given

¶55

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28191 WP No. 3205 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

any finding whether there is any due diligence on the part of the plaintiff, why he has not raised all these issues, whether such a pleading will change the nature of the suit, whether he can be permitted to withdraw an admission that is made, whether it is permissible? The trial Court had failed to discuss any of these issues in the impugned order. The order passed by the trial Court is bereft of any reasons, which cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The order passed in I.A.Nos.IX, XI, XII and XIII in O.S.No.364/2017 dated 08.01.2026 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is set aside and the matter is

¶60

remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶61

ii. The trial Court, considering the objections filed by the petitioner herein, shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶62