- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2489 WP No. 42500 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 42500 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI N.RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE N.PARAMESHWAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A NOOYI HOUSE ADDOOR VILLAGE-574 145 MANGALURU TALUK, DK …PETITIONER (BY MS.ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VISHWAJITH RAI M., ADVOCATE) AND: THE GURUPUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY 1) THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 2) SECRETARY GURUPURA-574 145 MANGALURU TALUK, DK …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VEERESH M.UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 23.08.2019 MADE ON I.A. UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 R/W 151 CPC IN O.S.NO.719/2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALORE, D.K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2489 WP No. 42500 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A No.6 in OS.No.719/2013 dated 23.08.2019 by the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangalore (DK), the plaintiff is before this court. 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for a bare injunction in that the trial Court has originally framed the issues and those issues are as follows: i. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties? ii. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the defendants are widening the road by encroaching the plaint schedule property? iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for? iv. What order or decree? The defendant filed the present application to frame the additional issues. It is stated that the suit is based on title, the property is a vacant land and the possession follows title in respect to the vacant land. Since the suit is based on title the issue regarding the title requires to be framed and the trial Court by order impugned had framed three issues as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2489 WP No. 42500 of 2019 i. Plaintiffs to prove that they are the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property? ii. Whether the plaintiffs have paid proper court fees? iii. Whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? While framing the said issues and allowing the application that is filed by the defendant that as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 1989 SC 1809 and AIR 1970 Kerala 310 the Court felt that it is necessary to allow the application on cost of Rs.1500/-. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this court. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that when the petitioner/plaintiff is seeking the relief of injunction the court cannot decide the title of the parties and such an issue is unwarranted. Original issues are framed in the year 2014 and now in the year 2019 they have come up with this application which is not permissible. Basing on the issues that are already framed in the year 2014, the Court can decide the issue, it is submitted that the order needs to be set aside. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant submits that Court was considering the case of the plaintiff according to whom he is the absolute owner of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2489 WP No. 42500 of 2019 property which is denied by the defendant. As such an issue in that regard needs to be gone into by the Court and further with regard to the proper court fee and the pecuniary jurisdiction the Court has framed the issues which are relevant and there is no intention on behalf of the defendant to drag on the matter and the Court had rightly allowed the application. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on the either side, perused the entire material on record. The suit is filed for permanent injunction, according to the plaintiff he is the owner of the property and according to the defendant he has denied the title to the property. While deciding a suit for injunction based on the fact that he is owner of the property, court can always go incidentally into the question of title and in that regard no issue is required. In the considered opinion of this Court the issue No.1 is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case. Then coming to issue No.2 and 3 whether plaintiffs has paid proper Court fee and whether Court has pecuniary jurisdiction, it is for the Court to decide even if the court has not earlier decided and in the facts and circumstances it is required and the Court can always frame - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2489 WP No. 42500 of 2019 those issues. In that view of the matter this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed in I.A No.6 in OS.No.719/2013 dated 23.08.2019 by the III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangaluru (D.K) is set aside as far as framing of issue No.1 is concerned. In respect to the issue No.2 & 3 and the cost that is imposed, the order passed by the trial court is upheld. ii. The parties are at liberty to put forth their respective contentions. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41