The petitioners assail the final order dated 27.3.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 5841/2023. As per the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioners for modification of the preliminary decree made in the final decree proceedings, was rejected. Obviously, the petitioners sought for such a relief in the light of the decision of this Court in “Vineetha Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others” [(2020) 9 SCC 1]. Consequently to the rejection, the matter was taken up before the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2023.10.17 17:01:06 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment in “Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Anr. v. Chakiri Yanadi and Anr.” reported in (2011) 9 SCC 788 to contend that it is legally permissible to seek for amendment of the preliminary decree in the aforesaid circumstances as the final decree is yet to be passed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that in terms of the law laid down in Ganduri’s case (supra), the petitioners have to move appropriate application to amend the preliminary decree. Certainly, the present application which culminated in the impugned order cannot be said to be an appropriate application in the sense that it was filed in the final decree proceedings. In the circumstances, it is for the petitioners to move application therefor appropriately. Needless to say that in case such an application is filed appropriately, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and it is made clear that the dismissal of the present petition will not be a legal trammel. Subject to the above, the special leave petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (DR. NAVEEN RAWAL) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)