G Rajesh Vs U G Prakash — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

G Rajesh Vs U G Prakash — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 23.02.2026 set aside; I.A.No.4 (amendment of written statement) allowed; defendants to pay Rs.25,000/- cost to the plaintiff by 26.03.2026; liberty to file an application for recalling PW1 for cross-examination, to be allowed by the Trial Court without adjournment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed I.A.No.4 for amendment of the written statement, notwithstanding the delay in filing it, where the petitioner-defendant does not seek to withdraw any statement or admission made therein and intends to incorporate additional defences.

Court's answer

Despite the delay in filing the amendment application, since the petitioner-defendant does not seek to withdraw any statement or admission made in the written statement and intends to incorporate additional defences, the writ petition deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice, with conditions, setting aside the impugned order.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 23.02.2026 dismissing I.A.No.4 is set aside, and I.A.No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.56/2019 is allowed.

Key takeaways

The defendants are permitted to amend the written statement subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- cost to the plaintiff on or before the next date of hearing, i.e., 26.03.2026.ratio¶¶47
If the defendants intend to cross-examine the plaintiff, they shall file an application for recalling the evidence of PW1; on such filing the Trial Court shall allow it, subject to the defendants cross-examining PW1 on the fixed date without seeking adjournment.ratio¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — amendment of written statement — I.A.No.4 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in O.S.No.56/2019 (suit for recovery of money) dismissed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga at the stage of defendants' evidence — High Court (H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.) held that although there was delay in filing the amendment application, the petitioner-defendant was not seeking to withdraw any statement or admission made in the written statement and intended to incorporate additional defences; in the interest of justice the impugned order was set aside and the amendment application allowed, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- cost to the plaintiff on or before the next hearing date (26.03.2026) — defendants permitted to seek recall of PW1 for cross-examination, such application to be allowed by the Trial Court with cross-examination on the fixed date without adjournment.

NC: 2026:KHC:15643 WP No. 8347 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8347 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

G RAJESH S/O H. GOPALAPPA AGED 32 YEARS CONTRACTOR, R/O 5TH CROSS JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA -577 501

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

U G PRAKASH S/O K.H. UDUSALAPPA AGED 38 YEARS R/O 1ST CROSS, MUNICIPAL COLONY KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

SAKAMMA

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY

Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

W/O H. GOPALAPPA

AGED 57 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK

G. RAKESH S/O H. GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

G. PRAMILA D/O H. GOPALAPPA AGED MAJOR.

G. PRATHIMA D/O H. GOPALAPPA AGED MAJOR

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15643 WP No. 8347 of 2026

HC-KAR

R2 TO R5 ARE R/O 5^TH CROSS JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. VINITA J D, ADVOCATE FOR SRI H DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT CHITRADURGA ON IA NO. 4 IN OS NO. 56/2019 DATED 23.02.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner–defendant No.1 has called in question the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short) on I.A.No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.56/2019 vide Annexure–E, whereby the said application seeking amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15643 WP No. 8347 of 2026

HC-KAR

The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.56/2019. The defendants, upon appearance, have filed their written statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the issues, and the parties have adduced their evidence. When the matter was posted for the defendants’ evidence, the defendants filed I.A.No.4 seeking amendment of the written statement. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

Though there is a delay in filing the application for amendment of the written statement, the petitionerdefendant No.1 is not seeking to withdraw any statement or admission made therein. In addition, the petitionerdefendant No.1 intends to incorporate certain additional defences by way of amendment of the written statement.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, the writ petition deserves to be allowed with certain conditions by setting

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15643 WP No. 8347 of 2026

HC-KAR

aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) The writ petition is allowed .

b) The impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.56/2019 vide Annexure–E, is set aside.

c) I.A.No.4 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with

Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.56/2019 is allowed.

d) The defendants are permitted to amend the written statement, subject to the condition that they shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff on or before the next date of hearing, i.e., 26.03.2026.

e) It is also made clear that, if the defendants intend to cross-examine the plaintiff, they shall file an application for recalling the evidence of PW1.

NC: 2026:KHC:15643 WP No. 8347 of 2026

5 -

HC-KAR

f) If such an application is filed, the Trial Court is

directed to allow the same, subject to the condition that the defendants shall cross-examine PW1 on the

date fixed by the Trial Court without seeking any

adjournment.

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53