- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34009 WP No. 23727 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23727 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. JAVEED HAROON, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MR. SYED ALI, R/O NO.20, 30TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, NEAR SAGAR HOSPITAL, BENGALURU – 560 041. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR G. S., ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. DILKUSH BEGUM SAJJAD, W/O MR. HAYAT SAJJAD AHMED, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 187, 4TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, VIVEKNAGAR POST OFFICE, BENGALURU - 560 047. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ANNEXURE A) DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN I.A. NO. 8 IN O.S. NO. 2354/2024 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: DDDDD Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34009 WP No. 23727 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 16.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.8 in O.S.No.2354/2024. 2. Heard Sri.Ravishankar G.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Vikhar Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. The respondent-plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.2354/2024 seeking permanent injunction. Written Statement is filed by the petitioner on 22.03.2025 raising an issue of plaintiff's presence in India at the time of institution of the suit, as the plaintiff presently resides in Canada. The concerned Court frames issues on 6.6.2025, the 4th defendant- petitioner files an application in I.A.No.8 invoking Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to frame an additional issue to that effect. The concerned Court by the impugned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34009 WP No. 23727 of 2025 order rejects the application, rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue that was sought to be framed had to be tried as a preliminary issue as it amounts to fraud and touches upon the jurisdiction of the very institution of the suit. He would seek that the said issue be framed in the light of its impact on the entire proceedings. The concerned Court rejects the application of the petitioner by the following order: "Objections to I.A. No.8 filed. Heard on I.A.No.8. The defendants sought to frame additional issue casting burden on the plaintiff to prove that she was in India at the time of institution of the suit. Needless to mention that the court need not frame issue on each of the facts which is asserted by one party and denied by the other. Framing of issue is required only if such disputed facts if proved or disproved results in or directly connected to the ultimate of the suit. If the question raised by the defendant is relevant, the defendant is entitled to put forward this defence during the trial even without framing an issue. This factual aspects is found relevant to record finding on issue no.1 and 2, the same can be considered while answering the issues. Therefore framing of this issue is not required. Hence I.A.No.8 is dismissed. Cost paid." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34009 WP No. 23727 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-caveator would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the plaintiff was in India at the relevant point in time, vakalath is filed, notarized everything in India and therefore, would defend the order of dismissal of the application. 6. The concerned Court holds that the Court need not frame an issue on mere assertion of the party. The question that the petitioner wants to raise can, at the time of defense during the trial, be raised and an issue to that effect need not necessarily be framed. The aforesaid order does not brood any perversity or resulting in failure of justice, though the order is perfunctory. 7. In the light of the order protecting the interest of the petitioner at a later point in time, there is no warrant of interference at this stage in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34009 WP No. 23727 of 2025 Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51