Karnataka High Court
Sri Patel Sidharamangouda S/O Patel ... vs Smt. Susheelamma W/O Late Vovindha ... on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15858
WP No. 108641 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 108641 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PATEL SIDHARAMANGOUDA
S/O PATEL VEERANAGOUDA,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE,
R/O. BANNAPPA BAVI STREET,
HOUSE NO.101, WARD NO. 13,
BALLARI-583 101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE VOVINDHA REDDY
D/O LATE S. SIDDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO. 50,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
WARD NO.3, GUDSILAPALLI,
POST. HIREHAL MANDAL,
Date: 2025.11.21 11:41:29
+0530
RAIDURGA TALUK, ANANTHPUR DISTRICT,
A.P. PIN-522 413.
2. SMT. MANGAMMA W/O SANJEEV REDDY
D/O LATE S. SIDDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. LALBAHADUR CAMP,
BOMMANHAL MANDAL, RAIDURG TALUK,
ANANTHPUR DISTRICT, A.P. PIN CODE-522 413.
3. SMT. ANANTHAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY
D/O LATE S. SIDDAREDDY,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15858
WP No. 108641 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KOTTAPALLI,
KANEKAL MANDAL, RAIDURG TALUK,
ANANTHPUR DISTRICT, A.P.
PIN CODE-582 413.
4. SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY
S/O LATE S. SIDDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MUNDARGI,
BALLARI-583 101.
5. SRI. YOGENDRA REDDY S/O LATE S. SIDDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MUNDARGI, BALLARI-583 101.
6. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O VENKAT REDDY
D/O LATE S. SIDDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GUDILLAPALLI,
HIREHAL MANDAL, RAIDURG TALUK,
DIST. ANANTHPUR-522 413 (A.P.)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 03.11.2025 PASSED ON APPLICATIONS NO.28 IN
O.S. NO.146/2004 PASSED BY LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, BELLARY, PRODUCED AND MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15858
WP No. 108641 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the order dated 03.11.2025 in I.A.No.28 in O.S.No.146/2004 permitting the amendment of written statement.
2. In the written statement, the defendants sought amendment in Para No.12 and 13 of the written statement and sought to substitute the word 'plaintiff' for the word 'defendant' at 3 places in second line in Para No.12, and in second and third line in Para No.13.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would urge that the application is filed when the case is posted for final arguments on merits and original defendant who has filed written statement did not file the application for amendment. His legal representatives now filed an application to take a stand which is contrary to the stand taken by the original defendant.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15858 WP No. 108641 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. It is his further submission that the amendment could not have been allowed, when the case is posted for final arguments.
5. Learned counsel for the defendants/respondents would contend that the amendment sought is only in respect of the typographical error and at four places, the defendant seeks to substitute the words the 'defendant' for the word 'plaintiff' and this being the position, there is no change in the nature of the defence raised, no new facts are introduced and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff.
6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
7. Though the Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended in the year 2002, the power of the Court to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding is not completely taken away. After the commencement of the trial, the Court would be bit slow in permitting the amendment. What is relevant is, the nature of the amendment that is sought and not the stage at which the amendment is -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15858 WP No. 108641 of 2025 HC-KAR sought. The nature of the amendment sought by the defendants would disclose that the amendment is sought to remove the typographical error where the word 'defendant' is used instead of the 'plaintiff'.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner would seriously oppose the proposed amendment in Paragraph No.13 and would contend that the same would change the nature of the defence.
9. The Court has considered the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement.
10. The proposed amendment is in sync with the substance of the stand already taken. The amendment which is sought is to amend the typographical errors in the written statement.
11. Under these circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the amendment is sought at a belated stage, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order permitting the amendment.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15858 WP No. 108641 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. It is noticed that the amendment is allowed on payment of ₹1,000/- to the plaintiff considering the nature of amendment, cost of ₹1,000/- also appears to be reasonable.
13. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31