- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.786/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. BOTH RESIDING AT AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA K.C. ADV., FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. N. SHARADA W/O L. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.231 SHARADAMMA NILAYA 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN BYATARAYANAPURA VILLAGE SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 092. 2. SRI. DODDA MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 3. SRI. JAYARAM S/O DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. BOTH RESIDING AT AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADV., FOR R1 R3 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER THEREBY BY QUASH ORDER DTD.6.11.2019 PASSED BY LEARNED VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BENGLAURU (CCH 19) IN O.S.NO.9444/2014 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.7 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.9444/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) Call for records. b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or order thereby quash order dated 06.11.2019 passed by learned VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 19) in O.S. No.9444/2014 (Produced vide ANNEXURE-H) and consequently allow I.A.No.7 filed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 petitioners in O.S.No.9444/2014 (Produced vide ANNEXURE-G) and c) Pass any such order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 2. Sri.Prasanna Kumar P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.9444/2014 filed by respondent No.1. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint which came to be dismissed. Later the said order was challenged in Civil Revision Petition No.58/2018 before this Court. This Court has permitted the petitioners to withdraw the revision petition with a liberty to the petitioners to raise the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the suit under provision of Section 11 of CPC. If such application is filed, the trial Court is to consider such application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is further submitted that after withdrawal of the said revision petition, application filed by the petitioners under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC came to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 allowed. The trial Court framed additional issue. However, the trial Court could not consider the additional issue as preliminary issue. Hence, he has filed an application in IA.No.7/2019 seeking to review the order dated 11.10.2019. The trial Court without appreciating the fact that the very object of filing the application by the petitioners is to treat the additional issue as preliminary issue, the said prayer of the petitioners was rejected without assigning any reason and dismissed the review petition on 06.11.2019. It is also submitted that the suit filed by vendor of respondent No.1 for permanent injunction was dismissed with cost. Based on the similar pleading and documents, respondent No.1 being the plaintiff cannot maintain the present suit and the said issue is required to be considered at the preliminary stage. However, the trial Court has refused to do so, which has compelled the petitioners to file the present petition. It is submitted that the trial Court may be directed to consider the additional issue framed as preliminary issue so that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 the petitioners cannot be compelled to stand for ordeal of trial. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Smt.Leela P. Devadiga, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioners are not ousted from the prayer sought. The additional issue framed is required to be proved by the petitioners by cogent and legally acceptable evidence and considering the said aspect, the trial Court has rightly rejected the request to consider the issue on maintainability of suit as preliminary issue. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.9444/2014 against the petitioners and others - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 seeking a relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioners filed IA.No.5 under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the vendor of respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.6283/2010 which came to be dismissed with cost. Hence, respondent No.1 being the purchaser from the said vendor/plaintiff, cannot maintain the present suit and the same is hit by resjudicata. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Civil Revision Petition No.58/2018. The said revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 07.02.2018 with a liberty to the petitioners to raise the preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit. 6. Pursuant to the said liberty, the petitioners filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 11.10.2019. The trial Court framed the additional issue as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 "(1) Whether defendants 3 and 4 prove that in view of earlier Suit in O.S.6283/10 in respect of Suit Schedule Property, this Suit filed by Plaintiff is hit by the Principles of Resjudicata?" 7. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 114 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking prayer to review the order dated 11.10.2019 of the trial Court, wherein the trial Court has allowed the application under Order 14 Rule 2 and requested to consider the additional issue framed as preliminary issue. The trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application on the ground that the nature of the suit being, suit for permanent injunction which is required to be disposed of summarily and all issues framed by the trial Court are required to be considered on merits. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 8. The impugned order though is not with detailed reasons, however, the trial Court has taken note of the fact that the prayer in the suit itself is for permanent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 injunction and the suit is required to be disposed of on merits by recording the finding on all the issues. I do not find any error or perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court in rejecting the application filed under Section 114 of CPC. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.58/2018, the petitioners avail the benefit of liberty to file an application and pursuant to the said application, additional issue came to be framed and the said issue is required to be adjudicated by adducing the evidence by the parties before the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any prejudice is caused to the petitioners by rejecting the request of treating additional issue as preliminary issue by the trial Court. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any other perversity in the order of the trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20587 W.P. No.786/2020 ii) The disposal of this petition cannot influence the trial Court in deciding the issues on its merits. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36