1. This petition is directed against the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 01.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.295/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (for short "the trial Court"), whereby the trial Court allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment for amendment of the plaint.

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

3. The material on record indicates that it is not in dispute that the respondent instituted the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.295/2011 against the petitioners herein for declaration, partition and other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit was contested by the petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants in the suit. Prior to commencement of trial, the respondent filed the instant application, I.A.No.4, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint by adding certain additional properties along with amendments to the body of the plaint as well as prayer column. Though the said application was opposed by the petitioners, the trial Court proceeded to allow the same by the impugned order, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has allowed the said application on the ground that merits/demerits of the proposed amendment and the nature of properties will have to be necessarily decided after a full fledged trial and the same cannot be gone into at the time of considering an application for amendment. The said finding of the trial Court cannot be found fault with, particularly, in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Sangavva Kaladagi and Others Vs. Shantawwa Sajjan and Another reported in 2020 (4) KCCR 2626, wherein it is clearly held that in a suit for partition, additional properties can be added at any stage of the proceedings. It is also relevant to state that since an opportunity to controvert the averments made in the proposed amendment would be granted in favour of the petitioners, who would be entitled to file additional written statement to proposed amendment, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by virtue of the impugned order.

5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity occasioning failure of justice warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 [LQ/SC/2015/292] .

6. I do not find merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to file their additional written statement to the amended plaint.

7. It is also made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and the same are kept/left open to be decided by the trial Court.