ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the co-defendants in O.S.No.93/2021 before the trial Court. 3. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.93/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants. Pursuant to filing of the suit, petitioner No.2-defendant No.3 filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and contending that all the suit schedule properties are his absolute properties. He pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties and sought for dismissal of the suit. 5.1 On the basis of the written statement, issues were framed and on the basis of the additional issues, evidence was adduced, documents were marked and petitioner No.2-defendant No.3 did not produce Ex.D-27, which was the Will executed by his father. However, no specific averment was made by petitioner No.2-defendant No.3 with regard to specific pleadings on the Will. Therefore, he filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement in order to insert paras-11(a) and amendment of para-12. The said application came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the trial Court has mechanically dismissed the application without taking into consideration the relevance and real dispute in question to be decided i.e., the fact that defendant No.3 did not have the said document prior to the filing of the written statement. However, the said document has been produced and marked in the evidence as Ex.D-27. However, the said document has been produced and marked in the evidence as Ex.D-27. Now having realised that he has not made any pleadings with regard to the said Will, which is a crucial document to decide the lis between the parties, it would be necessary to allow the application and permit defendant No.3 to amend his written statement. 6.1 It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches by taking hypothetical grounds and does not appreciate the fact that the said document, namely the Will, was not available with defendant No.3 at the time when he filed the written statement, which he secured later on. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that soon after he found the Will, after filing his written statement, he produced the same before the Court and got it marked in his evidence as Ex.D-27. 6.2 It is further contended that due to lack of legal knowledge and legal intricacies of pleading, he was unable to instruct his counsel to make the application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the averments with regard to the Will having been made and the property having been bequeathed by his father in favour of defendant No.3. The said document has already been marked as an exhibit as Ex.D-27. Therefore, the pleadings would have to be incorporated in the written statement for effective and proper adjudication and for determining the real question in dispute. Further, the amendment sought is to add para-11(a) and incorporate the word “not” in para-12 of the plaint. 6.3 Learned counsel further contended that if the amendment is permitted to be incorporated, no hardship or illegality or damage would be caused to the respondents, as the said document has already been marked as an exhibit in the evidence as Ex.D-27. He further contended that by considering the application to carry out the amendments in the written statement, hyper technical approaches cannot be taken, so also, the delay and laches could have to be seen with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioners to carry out the amendment in the written statement as sought for. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioners to carry out the amendment in the written statement as sought for. 6.4 Learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. decided on 24.09.2024 in support of his case. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiffs vehemently contended that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. He further contended that there is huge delay in filing the amendment to the written statement and already the matter is posted for recording of evidence. 7.1 Learned counsel for plaintiffs further contended that the trial Court has rightfully dismissed the application, in view of the fact that there was no difficulty or hardship or inconvenience for the petitioners to have produced the document at the earliest point of time, which according to him, was available prior to leading his evidence and having produced the same as Ex.D-27, he should have filed the application at the earliest point of time and not after the commencement of trial. 7.2 It is also contended by the learned counsel for plaintiffs that the provisions of Order VI Rule 7 of CPC very clearly mandate that the application for amendment should not be allowed. It is further contended that once issues are framed and matter is at the stage of evidence, the question of filing an application for amendment at belated stage deserves to be dismissed, which is rightly done by the trial Court and the same does not call for interference. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss this petition. 7.3 Learned counsel for plaintiffs relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of M/s. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. on 9 October, 2009 reported in Civil Appeal No. 6921 of 2009 and Dagadabai (Dead) by Legal Representatives vs. Abbas Alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari, (2017) 13 SCC 705 in support of his case. 8. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 9. The points that would arise for consideration are that: "1) Whether the impugned order deserves to be interfered? 2) Whether the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC deserves to be allowed?" 10. 8. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 9. The points that would arise for consideration are that: "1) Whether the impugned order deserves to be interfered? 2) Whether the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC deserves to be allowed?" 10. It is not in dispute the suit is filed for partition and separate possession and the matter is now set down for recording of evidence. At the stage when the matter is set down for evidence, an application has been filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the written statement by contending that the father of defendant No.3 executed Will bequeathing item Nos.1 to 3 of schedule A property and also an amendment to incorporate the word “not” in para 12 of the plaint, which was a typographical error. 11. On a careful perusal of the amendment application, it is seen that defendant No.3 seeks amendment where he relies upon an alleged Will executed by his father bequeathing item Nos.1 to 3 of schedule A property in his favour, which was traced after filing of the written statement and therefore, he wants to include certain paras by amending his pleadings and also by stating that, in view of the said Will executed by his father in his favour, defendant No.3 has got full rights over item Nos.1 to 3 of schedule A Property. Consequently, the plaintiffs or the defendants would not be entitled to any relief as sought for in the plaint. 12. Coming to the consideration of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for incorporation of certain pleadings in the written statement by the defendants, Order VI Rule 17 of CPC requires to be extracted for understanding as under: " 17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 has decided as to how the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has to be decided and considered. 14. It is relevant to extract the observations at paras-11.2(i) to 11.2(iv), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors. stated supra reads as under: "11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:- (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if - (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking armendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (e) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide; (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are (1) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs, (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are (1) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs, (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint. 12. The question that we have to consider, in the above backdrop is whether the High Court fell in error in allowing the application seeking leave to amend pleadings, in contravention of the statutory language. 13. By way of the amendment, what is sought to be done is, to question the validity of the Will, on the basis of which, the defendant sought to have the suit dismissed, while also expanding the scope of adjudication of the suit (a) to include movable property. It has to be then, demonstrated that determination of the genuineness of the Will is the necessary course of action in determining the issues inter se the parties, and (b) given the finding of the court below that the application was presented post the commencement of the trial, it could not have been, despite due diligence, presented prior to such commencement. 14. Be that as it may, the overarching Rule is that a liberal approach is to be adopted in consideration of such applications. [See also: Sanjeev Builders (supra); Rakesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd.: Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors?: B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parmeswaran Pillai & Anr.] 15. In our considered view, the two aspects required to be demonstrated in accordance with the statutory language in the present facts, do not stand on the same footing. The first issue will necessarily have to weigh over the second. 16. The scope of the dispute before us is limited to a procedural aspect. In the larger scheme, this dispute pertains to succession. If there is a Will, it has to be honoured. If one of the parties, who will be affected by the Will coming into effect, challenges it on one ground or the other, the process of succession cannot go forward without determination of the dispute regarding the Will. 17. In the larger scheme, this dispute pertains to succession. If there is a Will, it has to be honoured. If one of the parties, who will be affected by the Will coming into effect, challenges it on one ground or the other, the process of succession cannot go forward without determination of the dispute regarding the Will. 17. Any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to the largest extent possible, and should generally be, and are rightly frowned upon. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of a Suit. The defendant submits that the time gap between submitting the written statement to the Suit and the presentation of the application seeking leave to amend is unexplained. If this argument of the defendant is accepted, the question of Will shall remain undecided or at best will be decided with great delay. The trial which has admittedly already commenced, would be stalled by way of a challenge to the framing of issues which, in turn, would not be in consonance with the object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which is aimed at preventing multiplicity or multiple avenues of litigation, subsumed under the umbrella of one dispute. 18. Keeping in view the above, along with the fact that without determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the High Court, allowing the amendment setting aside refusal of the Trial Court to grant such amendment. 19. The amendment is allowed. The appeal is dismissed. The Trial Court shall decide all issues including the genuineness of the Will, expeditiously. It stands clarified that the discussion hereinabove is only in connection with the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and no opinion, whatsoever, has been expressed on the merits of the case. The Registry to forward a copy of this judgment to the Registrar of the HIgh Court who shall ensure its passage thereafter to the concerned Trial Court." 15. The amendment of pleadings of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants to the plaint and the written statement respectively, does not stand on the same footing. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement stand on a different footing altogether. The amendment of pleadings of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants to the plaint and the written statement respectively, does not stand on the same footing. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement stand on a different footing altogether. It is also held that the amendment of the written statement should be allowed by taking a liberal approach, on the contrary, it is not the case in the amendment of the plaint. 16. Generally, all amendments are to be allowed. The rules of procedure are a handmade of justice and cannot defeat the substantial right of parties, as held in the case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363 . It is also necessary to mention here that all the amendments are to be allowed, which are necessary for determining the question in controversy. This is certainly mandatory as contemplated in Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, wherein what has to be seen is that it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 17. It is also relevant to note that the Court should avoid taking hypertechnical approach while considering the application for amendment where it can be compensated by way of costs. It is also relevant to note that delay alone is not a ground to reject the amendment, where it is predicated on already existing facts on record and statements by the party, such amendments can be allowed, whereas the amendment becomes necessary for effective and satisfactory adjudication of the main matter and issue being the controversy between the parties, such amendment should be allowed. 18. In the present case on hand, the petitioners-the defendants are seeking amendment to the written statement to incorporate pleadings with regard to bequeathing of the property by way of Will by the father of defendant No.3 in his favour. When the amendment that is sought to be incorporated, such as the rights of the parties would decide real controversy and dispute. Hence, the amendment deserves to be allowed. Of course, an opportunity would be given to other side, namely the plaintiffs and other co-defendants objecting if any, to file necessary objections and lead further evidence to disprove the same. 19. Hence, the amendment deserves to be allowed. Of course, an opportunity would be given to other side, namely the plaintiffs and other co-defendants objecting if any, to file necessary objections and lead further evidence to disprove the same. 19. In a suit for partition, when defendant No.3 is relying upon the Will, which is already produced and marked as Ex.D-27, it would be necessary to allow such an amendment and decide the real controversy between the parties in dispute. Without adverting to the correctness, genuineness or validity of the Will, it would not be possible for the trial Court to adjudicate the matter and assign shares of the suit schedule properties. 20. Under the circumstance, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned order passed by the trial Court calls for interference for the reason that it is perverse and arbitrary. The amendment application filed by the petitioners requires to be allowed. 21. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER: i. This petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 24.09.2025 on I.A.No.18 in O.S.No.93/2021 by he Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, is hereby set-aside. Consequently, I.A.No.18 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed; iii. The petitioners to carry out the amendment in the written statement; iv. The petitioners are saddled with cost of Rs.30,000/- which shall be paid to the respondents-plaintiffs on the next date of hearing before proceeding further in the matter; v. In view of the suit being of the year 2021 and the matter having reached the final stage of arguments, the trial Court shall expedite the matter as early as possible.