- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25153 WP No. 17483 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17483 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI GOPAL S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS WORKING AS DRIVER OLD NO. W.32 AND NEW NO.D.322 H.M.T.COLONY, BENGALURU – 560 031. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M.V.RAJAGOPALA SETTY DEAD BY L.R.s 1. SMT. M.R.SHEELA, W/O LATE M.V.RAJAGOPALA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 2. SRI BHARATH, S/O LATE M.V.RAJAGOPALA SETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT “ANUGRAHA”, MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25153 WP No. 17483 of 2025 TUMAKURU -572101 …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 604/2007, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR; B. SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2025, PASSED IN O.S.NO.604/2007, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR VIDE ANNEXURE-A, BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XIV, RULE 5, OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO FRAME THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ISSUE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - defendant No.1 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur, on an interlocutory application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, in O.S.No.604/2027, seeking additional issue to be framed, stands rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25153 WP No. 17483 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Ravikumara B.R., learned counsel for petitioner. Notice to the respondents is not ordered. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The respondents - plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.604/2007 for declaration and permanent injunction. Written statement is filed by the petitioner – defendant No.1 on 26.05.2009; the issues are framed by the concerned Court on 03.08.2010; examination of the witnesses happen and after 15 years of the framing of charges, defendant No.1 files the interlocutory application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC seeking to frame additional issue. The concerned Court holding that the additional issue so sought is superfluous as issues have already been framed, which covers the issue that defendant No.1 has sought to reframe the issues, rejects the application. The rejection of the application has driven the petitioner – defendant No.1 to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged in the application to contend that the distinct issue is sought as an additional issue to be framed and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25153 WP No. 17483 of 2025 concerned Court has rejected the application. He would contend that the framing of the said additional issue is necessary for complete resolution of the issue in the suit. He would seek to allow the application. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. 6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates and events in the lis would begin from the year 2007. The suit is of the year 2007, written statement is filed on 26.05.2009; the issues are framed by the concerned Court on 03.08.2010; 15 years have passed by and when the trial Court is at the fag end, the application comes to be filed by defendant No.1 under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC seeking framing of additional issue. 7. The issues framed by the concerned Court read as follows: “ISSUES: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25153 WP No. 17483 of 2025 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that he is the absolute owner of Suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dtd:22/4/1976 and he is in possession of the same as on the date of filing of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the alleged interference by the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration and Permanent Injunction? 4. Whether the Court Fee paid is proper? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought in the plaint? 6. What order or decree?” (Emphasis added) The proposed additional issue sought to be framed by the petitioner reads as follows: Additional Issue to be framed "Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiff has not paid the court fee on the market value of the suit schedule property and the court fee paid in the improper and the relief is undervalued. The valuation made for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is improper and this Hon'ble court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this suit as pleaded in para-No.5 of the written statement as contended? (Emphasis added) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25153 WP No. 17483 of 2025 The concerned Court rejects the application by the following reasons: “…. … …. 5. On perusal of the pleadings, it is more evident that the plaintiff has filled the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and Permanent Injunction. On perusal of the entire material, it is the 2011 matter, the matter is posted for further cross examination of P.W-1, at this juncture the defendant No.1 moved the application seeking to frame the additional issue as per the schedule annexed to the application. On the contra advocate for the plaintiff has filed detailed objection. The proposed Addl. Issue No.1 mentioned in the application filed by the defendant No.1 also does not arise at all, because this court has already framed the said issue in issue No.4 dated 03-08- 2010. Hence, there is no necessity to framing of additional issue as per schedule annexed to the application. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following: : O R DE R : I.A filed by the applicant/defendant No.1 U/o.14 R-5 of C.P.C, dated 28-06- 2024 is hereby rejected. (Emphasis added) The concerned Court holds that when the matter was posted for further cross-examination of PW1, the application comes to be filed by defendant No.1. It further holds that framing of an additional issue does not arise at all, as issue - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25153 WP No. 17483 of 2025 No.4, which is framed on 03.08.2010 covers the proposed additional issue that is sought by defendant No.1, which is with regard to the court fee. 8. In that light, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order so passed by the concerned Court more particularly, in a suit of 18 years vintage and the issues are framed 15 years ago. Finding no perversity in the order or the order resulting in non-failure of justice, there is no warrant to interfere with the order so passed by the concerned Court to entertain the petition exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Finding no merit in the petition, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22