- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 13744 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. LOKESH S/O C.SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT ALUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 433. 2. JNANANANDHA S/O C.SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT ALUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 433. 3. VIJAYAMMA W/O APPAJIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 160. 4. ANUSUYA W/O SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT PANAKANAHALLY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 402. 5. THRISHALA W/O SHANKAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT THORESHETTAHALLY VILLAGE ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 476. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SREENIVASAN M. Y., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMACHANDRA S/O C.SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.1815, 4TH MAIN 2ND PHASE, VIJAYANAGAR MYSORE – 570 017. 2. SIDDARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RTD. PRINCIPAL, BEHIND PWD OFFICE K.H.NAGAR, MADDUR TOWN MADDUR – 571 428. 3. SHIVANNA S/O LATE CHIKKABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ENGINEER, MUDA, JLB ROAD MYSORE – 570 027. 4. THAMMAIAH S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT ALURDODI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 476. 5. SANNAMMA W/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT ALUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 433. 6. RAMU S/O KENDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT ALURDODI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 476. 7. ANILKUMAR S/O RAMU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT ALUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 433. 8. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE C.CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT ALOOR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 433. 9. H.L.KAMALAMMA W/O LATE C.RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 R/AT ALOOR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 433. 10. R.BHAGYA D/O C.RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 11. R.UMESHA S/O C.RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 12. R.DIWAKHAR S/O C.RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 13. R.KRISHNAVENI D/O C.RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 13 ARE R/AT NO.1453/1639, 6TH CROSS CHAMUNDESWARI NAGARA MANDYA CITY – 571 401. 14. C.PUTTASWAMY S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT D.NO.2820, 5TH CROSS GANDHI NAGAR, MANDYA CITY – 571 401. 15. G.P.SHARADHAMMA W/O C.RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 16. A.R.SUMANTHA S/O C.RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 17. A.R.DHAKSHAYINI D/O C.RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPNONDENTS NO.15 TO 17 ARE R/AT NO.1219, 4TH MAIN 7TH STREET, 21ST CROSS HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.L.SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R8, R9, R12, TO R14; NOTICE TO R1 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR ON I.A.XI FILING U/O 14 RULE 5 CPC R-W 151 CPC IN O S NO.221-2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.XI FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNER ORDER 14 RULE 5 CPC R-W 151 CPC IN O S NO.221- 2016 (ANNEXURE-D) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners – plaintiffs is before this Court calling in question an order dated 13.02.2025, by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, rejecting an application – I.A.No.XI filed under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, in O.S.No.221/2016, seeking to frame additional issues. 2. Heard Sri Sreenivasan M.Y., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K.L.Sreenivasa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8, 9, 12 to 14. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioners - plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.221/2016 for declaration and permanent injunction. It transpires that the respondents – defendants herein implead themselves as they are all the family members, in the suit proceedings seeking partition. After the impleading application is allowed, the defendants then file their written statement. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 The issues are framed on 24.03.2018. The issues so framed read as follows: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff and defendants are joint owners and in possession and in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that the decree passed in O.S. No. 30/2010 is not binding upon the plaintiff? 3. Whether plaintiff proves the interference by the defendants no. 3 to 8? 4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as sought for in the suit? 6. What order or decree?” The petitioners – plaintiffs then file the application under XIV Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking recast and additional issues, to be framed. The proposed additional issues read as follows: “PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1] Whether the defendants' No.9 to 18 proves that C.Channaiah, C.Puttaswamygowda, C.Ramalingaiah C.Ramesha, who are the sons of late Channegowda have contributed the amount to the elder brother C.Siddaiah to purchase the suit schedule properties - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 in his name as contended in para No. 3 of their written statement ? 2] Whether the defendants No. 9 to 18 proves that one Channegowda was occupied the "B" schedule property and he had given an application to the Thasildhar, Maddur in the name of C.Siddaiah for grant the same as contended in para No 9 of their written statement ? 3] Whether the defendants No. 9 to 18 proves that the "A" and "B" suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 and defendants No. 9 to 18 as contended in para No. 10 of their written statement? 4] Whether the defendants No. 9 to 18 proves that they are entitle for the relief as sought in their written statement?” If the issues framed by the concerned Court and the proposed additional issues sought to be framed by the petitioner – plaintiff, is juxtaposed, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the issues that are already framed would lead the concerned Court nowhere, as they are vague and cryptic. The plaintiffs have thus preferred the application seeking recasting of the issues by adding the afore-quoted issues. This comes to be rejected. 4. A perusal at the proposed additional issues would indicate that the petitioners have preferred the application seeking recasting of the issues, to infuse clarity in the suit. In - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25429 WP No. 13744 of 2025 the light of the issues framed, not being clear and the additional issues now proposed to be brought as a recast, being with clarity, I deem it appropriate to allow the application so filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs filed under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The application – I.A.No.XI filed under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC, filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. c. The concerned Court shall recast the issues and regulate its procedure thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT:SS