IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.23264/2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. GURUMURTHY S/O GANGAPPA .N AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.20, 2ND MAIN

2ND CROSS, NEAR ARALIMARA ROAD GOVINDARAJANAGARA VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560 040.

Digitally signed

2. SRI. UMESH by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM S/O GANGAPPA .N Location: Hig h AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS Court Of R/AT NO.20, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS Karnataka NEAR ARALIMARA ROAD GOVINDARAJANAGARA VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560 040.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B. MANJUNATH, ADV.,)

AND:

1. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O GANGAPPA N AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.20, 2ND MAIN

2ND CROSS, NEAR ARALIMARA ROAD GOVINDARAJANAGARA VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040.

2. SOMESHA .G S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.20, 2ND MAIN

2ND CROSS, NEAR ARALIMARA ROAD GOVINDARAJANAGARA VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.

3. SMT. SAVITHA W/O SRINIVASA M.P.

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.22A BEERESHWARA SWAMY NILAYA

4TH CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR

80 FEET ROAD, BENGALURU - 560072.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURULI M, ADV.,)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNX-A, PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE COURT AT BANGALORE (CCH-28)

IN O.S.NO.8562/2024 DTD 10.07.25 & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

"Issue a writ of certiorari or any writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order found at Annexure-A, passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Court at Bangalore (CCH-28), in O.S.No.8562/2024, dated 10.07.2025."

2. Sri.B.Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8562/2024 filed for partition and separate possession and the said suit ended in a compromise before the Lok Adalat. It is submitted that in the plaint and in the compromise petition, there is a typographical error while referring the name of the father of the plaintiffs as Nanjappa N. instead of Gangappa N. and seeks permission to correct the said mistake. The petitioners have also filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court under the impugned order.

3. Sri.Muruli M., learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the matter is settled before the Lok Adalat he has no objection to allow the writ petition by directing the Trial Court to carry out the necessary corrections.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both the sides.

5. The suit filed by the petitioners came to be settled before the Lok Adalat. It is noticed that in the plaint, there is a typographical error in respect of the name of the father of the petitioners which is mentioned as Nanjappa N instead of Gangappa N and the said mistake is continued in the decree.

6. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also taking note of the fact that the respondents have no objection to carry out the said correction, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the writ petition is allowed by ordering the aforesaid correction in the plaint and the decree of the Trial Court.

7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(1) The writ petition is allowed.

(2) The order dated 10.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No. 8562/2024 by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, is set aside.

(3) Consequently I.A.No.4 is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to carry out the necessary amendment in the plaint. Consequently, the Trial Court sha