- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21783 W.P. No.27642/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.27642/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. B. SOMASHEKAR S/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 1463/1, OPP. MORE SUPER MARKET NARAYANSHASTRI ROAD MYSURU-570 001. 2. K.P. PURUSHOTHAMA S/O K.P. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 2433, HOSABANDIKERI 1ST CROSS, K.R. MOHALLA MYSURU-570 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570 001. 3. THE MYSURU CITY CORPORATION MYSURU BY ITS COMMISSIONER-570 001. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21783 W.P. No.27642/2019 4. SARDAR K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS S/O LATE SARDAR K. BASAVARAJE URS AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT 22/1, LEELA VIHAR GOKULAM ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 001. 5. SMT. TRIPURASUNDARI DEVI D/O SARDAR K. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS R/AT BEHIND JAKKUR FLYING CLUB JAKKUR, BENGALURU-560064. 6. SMT. DEEPAMALINI D/O SARDAR K. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 304, BRIGADE PARKWAY 2ND MAIN, VV MOHALLA MYSURU-570 001. 7. SMT. KIRTIMALINI DEVI C/O SARDAR K. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS AGED ABOUT 39 YERAS R/AT 5, PRESTIGE DORCHESTER BEHIND JAGGUR FLYING CLUB JAKKUR, BENGALURU-560064. 8. CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS S/O SARDAR K. RAMACHANDRA RAJE URS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT 123, BLOCK-1, EMBESSEY-15 ALI ASGAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. 9. ABBAS SALEH BHAI @ ABBAS S. VAGH S/O ITE SAIFUDDIN M.A.VAGH R/AT 108, 8TH MAIN ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 001. 10. MOIZ SAIF UDDIN @ MOIZ S. VAGH S/O LATE SAIFUDDIN M.A.VAGH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT 7, REGENCY PALACE GI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21783 W.P. No.27642/2019 THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-25. 11. SYED BHAI SALEH BHAI @ TYED S. VAGH S/O LATE SALEH BHAI M.A.VAGH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT 7, REGENCY PALACE GI THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-25. 12. HUSSENI BHAI SAIFUDDIN @ HUSSEN I.S.VAGH S/O LATE SAIFUDDIN M.A.VAGH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT. 3, 43/134, MOHAMMADI ENCLAVE WELLINGTON ROAD, AOC CENTRE MARRENDPALLY (W), SECUNDERBAD-300003. 13. ABDUL HUSSAIN SAIFUDDIN @ ABDUL HUSSAIN S. VAGH S/O LATE SAIFUDDIN M.A.VAGH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/A 84, 6TH MAIN, II BLOCK JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 001. 14. ABBAS BHAI TAHERBHAI @ ABBAS T. VAGH S/O LATE TAHERALLY M.A.VAGH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT 3-B, POST OFFICE ROAD KRISHNASWAMYNAGARA COIMBATORE-641001. 15. MOHAMMED BHAI TAHERBHAI @ MOHAMMED I.T.VAGH S/O LATE TAHERALLY M.A.VAGH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT 29/1, 1ST CROSS, 4TH MAIN JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570 001. 16. DHIRENDRA KUMAR R. METHA ADVOCATE KEY ANS SOLUTIONS R/A C-50, 1ST FLOOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21783 W.P. No.27642/2019 YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570 001. 17. MAHADEVA R.S. S/O SANNARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT. RAVANDOOR S. KOPPAL PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107 MYSURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PALLAVA R, ADV., FOR R3 SMT. BHARATI PATIL, ADV., FOR R6 SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K. ADV., FOR R9, R10, R15 & R16 SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2 R13, R14, R17 ARE SERVED V/O DTD:16.06.2025 R5 TO R8 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R4 V/O/DTD:16.06.2025 NOTICE TO R5 & R7 H/S) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR AN ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2019 MADE IN O.S.NO.936/2011 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. 1st CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU AS THE SAME BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ERRONEUOS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ANNX-A) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21783 W.P. No.27642/2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or an order or direction in the like nature quashing / setting aside the order dtd.27.02.2019 made in O.S.No.936/2011 passed by the I Addl. 1st Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru as the same being totally arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in law, in the interest of justice (Annexure- A)." 2. Sri.Srikanth Patil K., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court vide order dated 27.02.2019, suo moto ordered to strike out a certain portion of the pleading which was uncalled for, on the ground that the petitioner has pleaded the legal provision in the plaint. It is submitted that to assist the Court with regard to the legal provision, certain provision of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, has been culled out and no prejudice would be caused to the other side if such pleading is on record. However, the trial Court on hypothetical approach directed the petitioners to strike out the pleading with regard to law. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21783 W.P. No.27642/2019 3. Per contra, Sri.Pallava R, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Smt.Bharati Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, Sri.Prithveesh M.K., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.9, 10, 15 & 16 and Sri.Jayalingayya Mudenoormath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 support the order of the trial Court and submits that the affidavit filed by PW-1 clearly indicates that the definition and certain provision of law has been extracted which goes against Order VI Rule 2 of CPC, as no party to the proceedings are entitled to plead the law or evidence in their pleading. Hence, they seek to sustain the impugned order by dismissing the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents- and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioners have filed O.S.No.936/2011 which is pending before the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru, seeking for the relief of declaration and injunction. The petitioner No.1 has adduced the evidence as PW-1 and the affidavit of petitioner is produced at Annexure-D. Perusal of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21783 W.P. No.27642/2019 said affidavit of PW-1 indicates that the petitioner has culled out the provision of law in his affidavit and the said affidavit is an extract of the plaint averments. In my considered view, the trial Court is fully justified in directing the petitioners-plaintiffs to strike out the pleading which covers the proposition of law. 6. Order VI Rule 2 of CPC clearly states that the pleading to state material facts and not the evidence. In the instant case, the petitioners have made an attempt to plead the law, which is beyond the scope of the aforesaid order, which is impermissible. It is always open for the petitioners to urge all the legal contentions at the time of arguments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order calling for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7