- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37615 WP No. 24731 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24731 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. NALINI CHETTUR D/O LT PARVATHI CHETTUR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT GIGLES BOOK BOUTIEQ TAJ CONNERMARA HOTEL BINNY ROAD, CHENANI - 600 002 REPRESENTED BY HER GPAHOLDER SRI K VENKATPRASAD AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE K. RAGHURAMAPPA R/AT NO. 1005 AD 1006, 10TH FLOOR PRESTIGE MERIDIAN II, M G ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHRAVAN MADHAV K.P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H J SIWANI S/O J K SIWANI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37615 WP No. 24731 of 2025 2. SRI M J SIWANI S/O J K SIWANI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO 122 5TH MAIN ROAD JAYAMAHLAL EXTENSION BANGALORE - 560 046 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM A. HUILGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2025 (AT ANNEXURE- A) AS AGAINST I.A. NO.9 IN O.S NO. 26260 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE 74TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO FRAME AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE ON MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SUIT WITHOUT SEEKING THE RELIEF OF DECLARATION AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37615 WP No. 24731 of 2025 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 is before this court calling in question an order dated 11.06.2025 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking additional issue to be framed. 2.Heard Shri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel for Shri Shravan Madhav K.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vikram A. Huilgol, learned Senior counsel for Shri Syed Khamruddin learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. The Petitioner is the defendant, the respondents, the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs institutes a suit for bare injunction. In the said suit, several proceedings sprang against an order of injunction being granted. The present petitioner approaches this court in MFA.No.2033/2021 and connected cases, which - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37615 WP No. 24731 of 2025 comes to be disposed by an order of the co-ordinate bench dated 09.11.2021, by observing as follows: "36. In the case on hand, Parvathi Chettur during her life, did not challenge the title of the vendors of the plaintiffs. The properties in question are the vacant MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021 sites, except few temporary structures. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contention that the suit was prima facie not maintainable for not seeking declaration of title. In the light of the above discussion this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case. 37. So far as the balance of convenience, the very fact of the defendants disputing title and possession of the plaintiffs shows their interference. Though the title deeds relied on by the plaintiffs are of the year 1994, they are facing threats of dispossession and alienation in the hands of the defendants at this length of time. Having invested their money, if they are dispossessed or the properties are alienated that leads to multiplicity of the proceedings. Thereby the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable injury. If the defendants succeed in the defence on a trial, they can deal with the property and until decree is rendered on adjudication, the right of the plaintiffs have to be protected." The suit progresses then. During the evidence, it is the case of the petitioner that questions that were sought to be put in the cross-examination to PW1 were not permitted to be put on the score that there is no issue of the kind that is framed for the petitioner to put those questions to PW1. It is at that juncture, the petitioner prefers an application seeking framing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37615 WP No. 24731 of 2025 of an issue with regard to maintainability on an application in Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, which comes to be rejected. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner now submits that if a direction is issued to the concerned court to permit the petitioner to raise the issue of maintainability without the issue being framed in the trial at the appropriate stage, it would suffice. 5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that theycan raise the issue that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis. The defendant cannot seek framing of an additional issue without the petitioner wanting to frame it. Be that as it may. 6. In the light of the submission and contra submission, I deem it appropriate to disposed the petition with the following directions: (i) The impugned order is sustained. (ii) The petitioner is at liberty to urge the contentions with regard to maintainability of the suit at the appropriate stage before the concerned court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37615 WP No. 24731 of 2025 (iii) The concerned court shall oversee that on the plea that the petitioner is wanting to raise the issue with maintainability, the suit does not get metamorphosed into a title suit. 7. With the said observation, reserving such liberty to the petitioner, as observed hereinabove, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 CT: BHK