- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27958 WP No. 20499 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20499 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE NYATHAPPA, R/AT. BYATARAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, KEMPAPURA POST, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK – 563 117. 2. SMT. VENKATESHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O. LATE NYATHAPPA, LAKKUR VILLAGE AND POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 160. 3. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O. SRI KARNA, R/AT. BETHAMANGALA, 2ND BLOCK, K.G.F. TALUK – 563 116. 4. SMT. BHARATHI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27958 WP No. 20499 of 2025 R/AT. LAKKUR VILLAGE AND POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 160. 5. SMT. SUMITHRA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O. LATE D.KUMAR, OPP. CANARA BANK, A.D.COLONY, BETHAMANGALA, K.G.F.TALUK – 561 203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.ABHINAV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI J.V.VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O SRI VENKATA REDDY, R/AT: JANGAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK – 563 116. 2. SRI MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. SRI VENKATAPPA, R/AT. NAGALAPALLI VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK – 563 116. 3. SRI PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE NYATHAPPA, R/AT BYATARAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, KEMPAPURA POST, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27958 WP No. 20499 of 2025 K.G.F. TALUK – 563 113. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA N.R., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, KGF, IN O.S.NO.366/2019 AT ANNEXURE -F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.12 DATED 26.08.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.366/2019 AT ANNEXURE -D TO THE WRIT PETITION, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION AND ETC., 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 petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 17-01-2025 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF on I.A.No.12 filed on 26-08-2023 in O.S.No.366 of 2019. 2. Heard Sri Abhinav R, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri Raghavendra N R, learned counsel appearing for respondents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27958 WP No. 20499 of 2025 3. The petitioners are defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. The 1st respondent/plaintiff institutes a suit for injunction. The petitioners files their written statement being the defendants before the concerned Court on 21-10-2019. Issues are framed by the concerned court on 04-02-2020. Four years after the framing of the issues and the trial progressing further, the present defendants file application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC seeking framing of additional issue No.5. On the score that the defendants in their written statement while the written statement was filed in the year 2019 had taken a defence that the suit was not maintainable, without seeking a prayer for declaration and possession, as the suit was filed only for bare injunction, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would reiterate the grounds urged in the application. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that it is a suit for bare injunction and it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove injunction and no declaratory relief need be sought, that too at the dictate of the defendants. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27958 WP No. 20499 of 2025 5. The concerned Court, by the order impugned, rejects the application on the following reasons: “REASONS 8. POINT No.1:- Perused the entire records, instant application with affidavit and objections filed by the party and also arguments canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties. When the matter was stood for cross of PW1 finally, the counsel for defendants has filed the present application which was opposed by the plaintiff. 9. Before going into the merit of the application it is appropriate to check the brief history of present case. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction in the year 2019 and my learned predecessor has issued emergent notice on IA.No.I and issued suit summons to defendants. Meantime the defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written-statement. Further the record shows that several applications were filed and disposed off and that on 04.02.2020, issues were framed and the matter proceeded with. Further the defendants have preferred MA.No.3/2020 which was dismissed by Hon'ble Appellate Court and plaintiff has led his evidence and the matter stood for cross of PW1. Meantime the present application was filed. 10. In the application the contention of the defendants that in their written-statement they have took the contention that without seeking the relief of declaration the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence in this regard issue has to be framed. Per contra the counsel for plaintiff contended that the present application is filed to drag the proceedings and the proposed issues is not necessary. 11. It is pertinent to note that, the counsel for defendant has filed the present application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, which deals about Power to amend and strike out issues: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27958 WP No. 20499 of 2025 (1)The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also at any time before passing a decree strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced. The scope of the said provision is at any time amendment of issues or framing of additional issues may be allowed. 12. On this background I have perused the record. As stated supra it is suit for permanent injunction and that on 04.02.2020 my learned predecessor has framed nearly four issues in the present suit. It is trite law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish his possession over the suit-schedule property as on filing of the suit and he also to establish the interference of the defendants. In this regard already proper issues were framed by my learned predecessor which will be helpful in deciding the dispute in the present suit. The defendants have to discredit the evidence of plaintiff and they can produce their evidences to establish the defences. 13. In the present suit the contention of the defendants that they already took the defence of non maintainability of the case of the plaintiff in the written- statement and proposed issues is very much required. But in general for the suit of permanent injunction such maintainability issue does not arise and as stated supra only possession and interference is important criteria. Moreover as per Sec. 9 of CPC all suits are maintainable before Civil Court unless and until it is barred by expressed and implied law. Hence the present suit is maintainable and there is no necessity to frame such proposed additional issue in this case. 14. Hence on considering all these aspects it clearly shows that the present application filed by the defendants without any strong reason and already the proper issues were framed and the contention of the defendants with respect of maintainability of the case can be considered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27958 WP No. 20499 of 2025 alongwith other issues while discussing the same. Hence the applicant failed to show the prima-facie ground to allow the application as prayed for. Further the record shows that when sufficient opportunity granted for cross of PW1 and when it was adjourned with cost, the present application was filed which shows the tactics of the defendants to prolong the matter. Hence such aspect should not be encouraged and it has to be declined with heavy costs. Hence I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 15. Point No.2: As per my discussion over Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A No.XII filed by the defendants U/Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC is hereby rejected with the cost of Rs.500/-.” The suit is one for injunction. In a suit for injunction, it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove his case. The recasting of the issues are now sought by the defendant, 5 years after the issues are already framed and the trial being at an advanced stage. The defendants who have now suffered an order, filed their written statement on 04-02-2020 itself and in the said written statement, have projected a contention that the suit was not maintainable. If that be so, the recasting of the issues that is sought by way of an application filed at the fag end of the trial was rightly rejected by the concerned Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27958 WP No. 20499 of 2025 6. I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the concerned Court. It is a product of sound reasoning and in consonance with law. Finding no merit, the petition stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76