Allowed¶55

P Kumaraswamy v. Sri Pathiyappa

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026WP/363/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2026:KHC:2407; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; WRIT PETITION NO. 363 OF 2026 (GM-CPC); decided 14-01-2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar (single judge, Oral Order). Keywords: amendment of plaint; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; correction of extent of suit schedule properties; compromise decree; FDP No. 28/2010; Lok Adalat award; partition and separate possession; O.S.No.356/2008; final decree registration; Articles 226 and 227; writ of certiorari against trial Court order; trial Court order set aside; amendment application allowed; notice to respondents dispensed with. No precedents cited or discussed in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.356/2008 set aside; application dated 31.01.2025 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment allowed.

P Kumaraswamy Vs Sri Pathiyappa — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2407 WP No. 363 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 363 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P KUMARASWAMY S/O. LATE PATHIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.5, 2^ND FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, CHOLURPALYA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.V. NAIK.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SRI PATHIYAPPA

¶12

S/O. LATE MUDALGIRIYAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S, RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7.

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O. LATE PATHIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FORMERLY R/A. NO. 1409/8, 1^ST ‘B’ MAIN ROAD,

¶15

VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 040.

¶16

SMT. BHAGYA T, W/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶17

KUM. CHAIYJANYA K. AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

¶18

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.755, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, ULLAL, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:2407 WP No. 363 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

4 SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, D/O. PATHIYAPPA,

¶23

AGED 51 YEARS, R/A. MALLADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDAMALLIGE POST, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 221.

¶24

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O. PATHIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A NO.121, 11^TH CROSS, NEAR SHANI MAHATMA TEMPLE, K.E.B. ROAD, GANESH FARM, ANJANA NAGARA, VISHWANEEDHAM POST. BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶25

SMT. GANGAMMA D/O. PATHIYAPPA, W/O. RANGAPPA, AGED AT 63 YEARS, R/A NO. 54, THIMARAYAGOWDA LAYOUT, ITTMADU, BANGALORE 560 085.

¶26

SMT. SUHEELAMMA, D/O. PATHIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEAR, NO.593, 3^RD CROSS ROAD, NEAR MAHDESHWARA TEMPLE, RANGANATHPURA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU 560 079.

¶27

SRI. H. R. CHIKKARANGASWAMY, S/O. LATE H. R. RAMACHANDRA AND SMT. JAYAMMA, GRANDSON OF PATHIYAPPA,

¶28

SRI. H. R. DEVARAJA, S/O. LATE H. R. RAMACHANDRA AND SMT. JAYAMMA, GRANDSON OF PATHIYAPPA,

¶29

RESPONDENTS NO.7 & 8 BOTH R/AT 390, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE CHANDRANAGAR, KAMALANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 079.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:2407 WP No. 363 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SMT. H. R. BHAGYALAXMI, D/O. LATE H. R. RAMACHANDRA AND

¶34

SMT. JAYAMMA, GRANDSON OF PATHIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶35

RESIDING AT BEGUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS ARE D/W)

¶38

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE IN O. S. NO.356/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, AND AFTER LOOKING INTO THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-11-2025, SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER DATED 15-11-2025 (ANNEXURE-J) PASSED APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE SCHEDULE BY THE COURT OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, AND FURTHER ALLOW THE SAME, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.356/2008 is directed against the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and consequently, the decree was rejected by the trial Court.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:2407 WP No. 363 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondents is dispensed with.

¶47

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents - defendants for partition and separate possession, which was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2011. In pursuance of the same, final decree proceedings in FDP No. 28/2010 having been instituted, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for compromise and a compromise decree / award was passed by the trial Court. In pursuance of the same, when the petitioner sought registration of the final decree which was engrossed on stamp paper, it was brought to his notice that there was some discrepancy in the extent of the suit schedule properties, which constrained the petitioner to file the instant application dated 31.01.2025 seeking amendment of the plaint. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:2407 WP No. 363 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the petitioner merely sought corrections in the discrepancies in the extent of the suit schedule properties and the proposed amendment was relevant and necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the compromise decree passed in FDP No.28/2010. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and the amendment application dated

¶52

31.01.2025 filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶53