Dismissed¶35

Sri v. Manjunath v Sri v Gangadhar

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026WP/8372/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC; typographical error in suit schedule ('AC sheet roofed house' vs 'Ground and First floor of RCC roofed house'); partition and separate possession suit O.S.No.657/2025; amendment before framing of issues; no change in nature of relief; Article 227 certiorari refused; WP No. 8372 of 2026 (GM-CPC); High Court of Karnataka; decided 21.04.2026; H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The amendment corrects only a typographical error in the suit schedule ('AC sheet roofed house' instead of 'Ground and First floor of RCC roofed house') and does not change the nature of the relief claimed. ¶28

Sri v Manjunath Vs Sri v Gangadhar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:21850 WP No. 8372 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8372 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI V MANJUNATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17, 6^TH MAIN, MEENKASHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR G.S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. USHA M.V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. V. GANGADHAR Digitally signed by S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, Location: HIGH RESIDING AT NO.17, COURTOF KARNATAKA 6^TH MAIN, MEENKASHINAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 079

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SRIHARI R DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2026 PASSED IN O.S.NO.657/2025 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21850 WP No. 8372 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF PREFERRED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON I.A.NO.03 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short 'Trial Court'), whereby allowing the application I.A.No.3 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court in Original Suit.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:21850 WP No. 8372 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. On appearance, defendant has filed written statement disputing the description of the property. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed this application I.A.No.3 for amendment. The same came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the suit is filed for partition and separate possession. Before framing of issues, the plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.3 under Order VI Rule 17 stating that, due to oversight by typographical error, it is mentioned as 'AC sheet roofed house' in the schedule instead of 'Ground and First floor of RCC roofed house'. By this amendment, the plaintiff is not changing any nature of the relief.

¶29

The only typographical error is that, they have

¶30

stated 'AC sheet roofed house' is situated in the B

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21850 WP No. 8372 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

schedule property, instead of the 'Ground and the First

¶34

floors of the RCC roofed house' is situated in the B schedule property. The plaintiff wants to correct the same in the suit schedule, by which, it will not change the nature of the relief and this is a suit for partition and the issues has not yet been framed. The trial Court after considering all these aspects of the matter, is justified in allowing the application-I.A.No.3. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶35

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

¶38

PSJ

Sri v. Manjunath v Sri v Gangadhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Manjunath v Sri v Gangadhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K N Ashakumari Vs K N Dharmendra Kumar

A Ganesh Vs Dr.Chaitra

Bpl Medical Technologies Private Limited Vs Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited

Shivappa Vs Yellamma

Mr.Sachin Kumar H Vs Bank of Baroda

Sri S Madhavan Vs Sri K P Shivanaga