Allowed¶60

Smt. Lakshmamma v. Sri Ganesh M

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/9943/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; rejection on sole ground that amendment introduces evidence in pleadings; fabricated genealogy tree Ex.P8; charge sheet pursuant to private complaint by defendant No.4; gift deed dated 13.12.2010; O.S.No.202/2011 Civil Judge JD & JMFC Nelamangala Bangalore Rural; Article 227 Constitution of India; Karnataka High Court WP No. 9943 of 2019 (GM-CPC); NC: 2026:KHC:33207; amended written statement within three weeks; no prejudice; scope of suit unchanged.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.12.2018 on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.202/2011 set aside; I.A.No.9 (amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) allowed; defendants directed to file the amended written statement within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri Ganesh M — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's rejection of I.A.No.9 - the defendants' application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend their written statement in O.S.No.202/2011 - made solely on the ground that the proposed amendment introduces evidence in the pleadings, should be set aside.

¶47

Court's answer

The facts sought to be pleaded through the amendment (the alleged fabricated genealogy tree marked as Ex.P8 and the charge sheet following defendant No.4's private complaint) are facts which occurred subsequent to the marking of Ex.P8 and which the defendants intend to bring on record; though such a pleading may not be strictly necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, the amendment is nonetheless permissible.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Allowing the amendment application would cause no prejudice to the plaintiff nor change the scope of the suit; accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the Trial Court's rejection of I.A.No.9 is set aside.

¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), Vijaykumar A. Patil J., 03.07.2026, in WP No. 9943 of 2019 (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: writ petition challenging the order dated 20.12.2018 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Nelamangala rejecting I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.202/2011 - an application by defendant Nos.1 to 6 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend their written statement in a suit seeking declaration that a gift deed dated 13.12.2010 does not bind the plaintiff. The Trial Court had refused the amendment solely on the ground that the proposed amendment introduces evidence in the pleadings. The proposed amendment pleaded that the plaintiff's genealogy tree (Ex.P8) was fabricated and that a police charge sheet followed a private complaint by defendant No.4. The High Court held that although such pleading may not be strictly necessary to adjudicate the dispute, the facts arose subsequent to the marking of Ex.P8, and allowing the amendment would cause no prejudice to the plaintiff nor change the scope of the suit. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, I.A.No.9 was allowed, and the defendants were given three weeks to file the amended written statement.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9943 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,

¶9

SRI. SHIVASWAMY M, AGE 54 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY M AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶11

SRI. BASAVARAJ M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶12

SRI. HARIKRISHNA M. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. MALLESH M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶15

ALL ARE SONS OF LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA R/O. GOTTIGERE POST, VADDARAPALYA, 8^TH PHASE, JP NAGAR, KOTHANURU VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 086

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI GANESH M S/O. LATE. MUNISWAMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶22

1A. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶23

1B. SMT. GEETHA G. D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶24

1C. SMT. HEMALATHA

¶25

D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA W/O. RAGHU @ DAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶26

1D. SMT. JYOTHI W/O. LINGARAJU D/O. LATE GANESH @ GANESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶27

ALL ARE R/AT SEEGEPALYA SOMPURA HOBLI, KAMBALU POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶28

AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 12.06.2026

¶29

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, 2^ND FLOOR, THIMMAIAH COMPLEX,

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

GANDHINAGAR, BEHIND TRIBUVAN TALKIES, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. P.V., CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. B.P. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R1 (A TOD))

¶35

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPGUNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 ON I.A.NO.9 VIDE ANNX-F PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA (BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT), IN O.S.202/2011 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE W.P. AND ETC.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.202/2011 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Nelamangala

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

(Bangalore Rural District) (hereinafter referred to as the

¶44

'Trial Court' for short).

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶46

and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶47

Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.202/2011 against the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 6 seeking relief of declaration that the gift deed dated 13.12.2010 does not bind the plaintiff and for the consequential relief of injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 6. They contested the proceedings. The Trial Court framed the issues, and the matter was posted for recording of evidence. At that stage, defendant Nos.1 to 6 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and which came to be rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the proposed amendment is introducing evidence in the pleadings.

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

It is required to be noticed that, in the proposed

¶51

amendment, the defendants are contending that the plaintiff produced a fabricated genealogy tree, which has been marked as Ex.P8, and that defendant No.4 had filed a private complaint against the plaintiff, pursuant to which the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet. In my considered view, though such a pleading may not be strictly necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, however, these are the facts which the defendants intend to bring on record before the Court and which have taken place subsequent to the marking of Ex.P8. By allowing the said application, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff nor change the scope of suit. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶54

ii) The impugned order dated 20.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.9 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:33207 WP No. 9943 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58