IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3573 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. BASAVANAGANGURU VILLAGE, ABBALAGERE POST, HOLALURU HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST.-577 204

2. KADAMMA W/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, NAVILE SHIVAMOGGA-577 204 Di gitally signed by

3. BASAVARAJAPPA CHANDANA B M S/O RANGAPPA Location: AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS High Court R/O. BASAVANAGANGURU of VILLAGE ABBALAGERE POST Karnataka HOLALURU HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TQ AND DIST.-577 204.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJU BHAT., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O VIJAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O BOMMANAKATTE VILLAGE AND POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 204 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT SHIVAMOGGA IN OS NO.11/2025 ON IA NO.XI FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IS HEREBY AS ANNEXURE-A.

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 the defendants in O.S.No.11/2025 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Shivamogga, is directed against the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 passed on I.A.No.XI whereby the said application filed by the respondent- plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court.

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

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners-defendants for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, after conclusion of trial and at the stage of arguments, the plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint, which was contested by the petitioners – defendants and culminated in the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 allowing IA No.XI as hereunder:

“Orders on I.A. No.XI filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint.

2. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that the plaintiff is the sister of defendants no. 1 to 3. These defendants have misrepresented facts to the land acquisition authority and received compensation as a result. The plaintiff became aware of this situation in March 2025. Consequently, she submitted an application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 106 of the CPC in Execution Petition No. 59/2021 to have her rights adjudicated. However, the court dismissed this application on the basis that the plaintiff was not a party to the acquisition proceedings and that such an application is not maintainable in an execution petition. The plaintiff now seeks to amend her plaint to include facts pertaining to the land acquisition and the award issued in the land acquisition proceedings. She also intends to insert the prayer in the plaint. If the application is not allowed, the plaintiff will face significant hardship. Therefore, she prayed to allow the application.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant no.1 and 3 has filed objection to the application contending that, the amendment sought by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The application appears to be filed solely to rectify defects in the plaint and to introduce a new cause of action. The amendments proposed exceed the scope of the original plaint and introduce new and inconsistent claims. A registered partition was already executed on 25.06.1993, prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot reopen the partition. Furthermore, the application has been sub