IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34438 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

N. MUNIRAJ, SINCE DEACEASED BY HIS LRs.

1. M. RAJESH, AGE BOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE N. MUNIRAJ

2. M. VINOD, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE N. MUNIRAJ, 3. SMT. M. KALYANI, AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O LATE N. MUNIRAJ W/O SAMPANGI RAMU 4. SMT M. ASHWINI, Digitally AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, signed by CHANDANA B D/O LATE N. MUNIRAJ M W/O KIRAN KUMAR, Location: High ALL RESIDING AT NO. 6, 4^TH CROSS, Court of L. B. SHASTRI NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, Karnataka BANGALORE – 560 038 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. N. SHYLAJA, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O N. PURUSHOTHAM, NO. 6, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, LBS NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038

2. S. SUNIL AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE N. SRINIVAS, RAJA HAIR DRESSES, CHANCHALA RAMAIAH BUILDING, MES ROAD, MUTHYALANAGAR, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 013

3. SMT. VARALAKSHMI, AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O RAVANAPPA, NO.16, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, MES ROAD, NEAR ST. CLARET SCHOOL, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 013 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2025, PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH NO.5), BANGALORE, ALLOWING I.A. FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CPC IN O.S. NO.9006/2011 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by defendant No.1(a) to (d) in O.S.No.9006/2011 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.5), Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order dated 20.09.2025, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1 -plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1 -plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking for partition and separate possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property.

4. After commencement of evidence, the respondent-

plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint as hereunder:

“Amendment Sought For Add the below sentence after the word ‘Mense Profits’ further declared that the plaintiff’s husband Sri.N.Purushotham is lost forever and presumed to be dead.”

5. The said application having been opposed by the petitioners, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under:

ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC The plaintiff filed this application under Order 6 Rule

17 read with section 151 of CPC to amend the plaint as sought in the application. By way of amendment the plaintiff wanted to insert to declare that, the plaintiff husband by name N.Purushotham is lost for ever and presume to be dead.

2. The application is supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff contended that, her marriage was solemnized on 12.08.1994 as per the Hindu customs at Corporation Community Hall Jogupalya. The marriage was performed by her parents by spending substantial amount.

3. After the marriage, she was residing along with her husband with her in-laws in the above address. The suit has been filed seeking the declaration and separate possession against the defendants with respect to schedule property. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW1, her counsel noticed that, in the body of the plaint, though the fact of amendment sought was narrated same was not asked in the prayer.

4. The present counsel who advised her and told that, the said prayer is required for the proper adjudication of the case. therefore, fil