- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105969 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES, UNION BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION, BELAGAVI) R/BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SHRI. IQBAL HUSSAIN IMAMSAB MANIYAR, AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H. NO.73, REVENUE COLONY, KANBARGI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590016 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES, UNION BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION, BELAGAVI) R/BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHIVANGOUDA S/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. CHIKKABAGEWADI, TAL. AND DIST; BELAGAVI-591109 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S TELI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI GAJANAN S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR KALAL, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.19 15:27:52 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAMPAGAON VILLAGE, TAL. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591125 2. SHRI. NARAYAN S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR KALAL, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAMPAGAON VILLAGE, TAL. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591125 3. SHRI. MOHAMMED MUZZAMBIL S/O. TURABKHAN KITTUR AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. NEAR SHRINAGAR GARDEN, TAL. DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI. RAMCHANDRA S/O. GIRIGOUDA PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY LRS., SMT. MALSHRI W/O. RAMCHANDRA PATIL, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SY. NO.90, VARADAPPA GALLI, KHASBAG, KVS SCHOOL, BELAGAVI-590003 5. SMT. SWATI D/O. RAMCHANDRA PATIL, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SY. NO.90, VARADAPPA GALLI, KHASBAG, KVS SCHOOL, BELAGAVI-590003 6. SHRI. GIRISH S/O. RAMCHANDRA PATIL, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SY. NO.90, VARADAPPA GALLI, KHASBAG, KVS SCHOOL, BELAGAVI-590003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHETANA S. BIRAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3, R5 AND R6 NOTICE H/S; R4 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER ON I.A. NO. 7 DATED. 06-08-2024 IN OS NO. 90/2015 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE- H AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the Order on I.A.No.7 dated 06.08.2024 in O.S.No.90/2015 passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi vide Annexure-H. b. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to meet the ends of justice and equity. 2. The Petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.90/2015 seeking for the following reliefs: a) A Decree for the relief of declaration be passed and thereby the sale deed registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Belagavi in document No.BL-1-09- 9088-2014-15 on 20.10.2014 at 01:51:23 pm in respect of suit property be declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs union. b) A Decree for the relief of permanent injunction be passed and thereby the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody action on their behalf be restrained from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. c) Any other reliefs deem fit be granted. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 3. The defendants having filed their written statement denying all the allegations. Issues were framed on 15.2.2016 as under:- a) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit sale deed dt. 20.10.2014 granted by defendant No 3 and 4 in favour of Deft No. 1 and 2 in respect of suit property is null and void and hence not binding on them? b) Whether the plaintiff prove their lawful possession over the suit property as on the date of suit? c) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants? d) Whether the valuation of the suit property made in the plaint and the court fee paid thereon are proper and sufficient? e) To what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to? f) What order or decree? 4. The Petitioners had filed an application under Rule 5 of Order 14 of Code of Civil Procedure on 21.6.2024 seeking for framing of additional issues as under: a) Whether the defts no. 1 and 2 prove that the plff no.1 lost the post & eligibility as General Secretary ad plf no.2 lost post & eligibility as President and membership after the transfer and retirement? b) Whether the deft no.1 and 2 prove that deft no.3 and 4 were legally appointed as Secretary and President of The State Transport Employees Union Belagavi, Division Belagavi? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 c) Whether the defts no.1 and 2 prove that defts no.3 and 4 were authorised and possessed legal competency to transfer the suit property to deft no.1 and 2 by undergoing legal procedure pursuant to Deed of Sale dt. 20.10.2014 bearing Reg No. 9088? d) Whether the defts no. 1 and 2 prove that in pursuant of the sale deed dated: 20.10.2014 of the suit property they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of suit? e) Whether the defts no.1 and 2 prove that they are entitle to claim rent from the tenants in occupation of the suit property? 5. The said application having been dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 6.8.2024, the Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. The submission of Sri.Vittal S.Teli, learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the application filed for framing of additional issues has been rejected without considering the averments made in the written statement. There being several contentions which have been raised by the defendants, it is for the defendants to establish those contentions and as such, it was but required for the Trial Court to frame issues on the basis of the positive averments made by the defendants. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam rep by its President and others1 more particularly Paras 30 and 32, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 30. Framing of issues is a very important stage of a civil trial. It is imperative for a Judge to critically examine the pleadings of the parties before framing of issues. Rule 2 of Order 10 CPC enables the court, in its search for the truth, to go to the core of the matter and narrow down, or even eliminate the controversy. Rule 2 of Order 10 reads as under: “2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party.—(1) At the first hearing of the suit, the court— (a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit, examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in court, as it deems fit; and (b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in person or present in court or his pleader is accompanied. (2)-(3)***” It is a useful procedural device and must be regularly pressed into service. 32. If issues are properly framed, the controversy in the case can be clearly focused and documents can be properly appreciated in that light. The relevant evidence can also be carefully examined. Careful framing of issues also helps in proper examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and final arguments in the case.” 7. The learned counsel for the Respondents would however oppose the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners. She submits that the suit is of the year 1 (2012) 6 SCC 430 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 2015. The Petitioners who are the Plaintiffs therein have been delaying the matter for one reason or the other and applications have been filed to protract the proceedings. The Petitioners being the Plaintiffs are required to discharge the burden of proof cast upon them as per the original issues. Instead of doing so, the Petitioners are seeking to shift the burden of proof on the Defendants therein which is not permissible. For the Petitioners to succeed in the suit, it is required for the Petitioners to establish their case in law. 8. Heard Sri.Vittal S.Teli, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Smt.Chetana S.Biraj, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2. Notice to Respondents No.3 to 6 have been served and unrepresented. Perused the papers. 9. The short question that is required to be decided in the present matter is as to whether the trial Court would be required to frame issues on the basis of the averments which have made in the written statement when no counterclaim is sought for in pursuance thereof? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 10. The suit as indicated above has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking for a declaration that the sale deed registered in the office of Sub-Registrar is null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs as also for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs. In such a suit, it is but required that the Plaintiffs establish that the execution of the registered sale deed is bad in law on the available grounds to the Plaintiffs. 11. The explanation which has been offered by the Defendants in the written statement is only in order to make clear the manner in which the said document was executed and is not a title or a claim set up by the defendants. What has been stated in the written statement is an explanation which has been offered to the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in the plaint. The defendants have not sought for any counterclaim requiring them to establish or prove a particular fact in relation thereto. The suit being one for declaration of a sale deed as null and void, the burden of proof would - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 always rest on the Plaintiffs to establish the same and not seek to cast the burden on the Defendants as sought to be done by the Plaintiffs by filing application under Rule 5 of Order 14 of Code of Civil Procedure which is a complete abuse of the process of court. The Plaintiffs having come to Court seeking for relief being required to establish their case cannot seek for the Defendants to establish the case in the negative. It is always for the Plaintiffs to establish the case in the positive. 12. The reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court on a Shanmugam’ case is also completely misconceived inasmuch as what the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically indicated that the pleadings have to be critically examined to frame appropriate issues, which could focus the Court on a particular matter giving a proper judgment. Even if the said judgment were to be applied in the present case, the focus would have to be on the claim of the Plaintiffs. In that view of the of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court, the Writ Petition stands dismissed by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10311 WP No. 105969 of 2024 imposing cost of ₹10,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 13. Since the suit is of the year 2015, the Trial Court is requested to try and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51