The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally to ensure effective adjudication of the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other side.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the co-defendants in O.S.No.93/2021 before the trial Court.

3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

4. The petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.93/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga.

5. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants. Pursuant to filing of the suit, petitioner No.2-defendant No.3 filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and contending that all the suit schedule properties are his absolute properties. He pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties and sought for dismissal of the suit.

5.1 On the basis of the written statement, issues were framed and on the basis of the additional issues, evidence was adduced, documents were marked and petitioner No.2-defendant No.3 did not produce Ex.D-27, which was the Will executed by his father. However, no specific averment was made by petitioner No.2-defendant No.3 with regard to specific pleadings on the Will. Therefore, he filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement in order to insert paras-11(a) and amendment of para-12. The said application came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the trial Court has mechanically dismissed the application without taking into consideration the relevance and real dispute in question to be decided i.e., the fact that defendant No.3 did not have the said document prior to the filing of the written statement. However, the said document has been produced and marked in the evidence as Ex.D-27. Now having realised that he has not made any pleadings with regard to the said Will, which is a crucial document to decide the lis between the parties, it would be necessary to allow the application and permit defendant No.3 to amend his written statement.

6.1 It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches by taking hypothetical grounds and does not appreciate the fact that the said document, namely the Will, was not available with defendant No.3 at the time when he filed the written statement, which he secured later on. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that soon after he found the Will, after filing his written statement, he produced the same before the Court and got it marked in his evidence as Ex.D-27.

6.2 It is further contended that due to lack of legal knowledge and legal intricacies of pleading, he was unable to instruct his counsel to make the application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the averments with regard to the Will having been made and the property having been bequeathed by his father in favour of defendant No.3. The said document has already been marked as an exhibit as Ex.D-27. Therefore, the pleadings would have to be incorporated in the written statement for effective and proper adjudication and for determining