- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.19775 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. DR.ANIRUDH V. S/O.N.A.VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 18/21, 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011 2. SRI N.A.VENUGOPAL S/O.LATE N.M.ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO. 18/21, 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK | JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011 REP.BY HIS PA HOLDER SMT.MENAKA VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O.N.A.VENUGOPAL … PETITIONERS (BY SRI OM KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N.A.RAVIGOPAL S/O.LATE N.M.ANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.19, 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 2. AMULYA SUMANTH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O.SUMANTH DONTHI D/O.N.A.VENUGOPAL R/AT NO. 41, MOUNTAIN ROAD 1ST BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560 011 3. HARSHA RAVIGOPAL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O.N.A.RAVIGOPAL R/AT NO. 19, 7TH CROSS| 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011 4. ADARSHA RAVIGOPAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O.N.A.RAVIGOPAL R/AT NO.19, 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK | JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.R.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2; SRI R.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-3 & R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2025 PASSED ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IN O.S.NO.1990/2018 BY LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsels for respondents. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he would restrict this petition to the order dated 11.06.2025 passed on IA.No.46 in O.S.No.1990/2018 filed under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to delete/strike down issue No.16 by LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. He also submits that he seeks liberty to file separate petition for the orders passed on IA.Nos.44 and 45 in O.S.No.1990/2018. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the trial Court has framed issues, wherein issue No.8 reads as under: "8. Whether defendant No.4, 6 and 7 prove that item No.1 to 8 of the counter claim properties are ancestral properties as contended in the written statement and counter claim?" - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 However, the trial Court, has once again framed unnecessary issue at issue No.16, as issue No.8 has already been framed. The said issue No.16 reads as under: "16.Whether the plaintiff proves that item No.1 and 6 of written statement schedule properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.3 (now transposed as plaintiff No.2)?" 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioners that issue at Sl.No.16 framed by the trial Court is unnecessary as it is duplication and unwarranted, in view of issue already been framed at issue No.8. Therefore, he contends that the trial Court has committed an error in framing issue No.16 which is a duplication and tantamounts to pre-judging of issue No.8. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the petitioners are the plaintiffs and there are several issues framed by the trial Court by casting onus upon the defendants to prove. Therefore, the particular issue No.16 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 is unnecessary, unwarranted and the same may not be required for the reason that there need not be onus, which would be cast upon the plaintiffs at issue No.16 to prove item Nos.1 and 6 of the written statement schedule properties to be the self acquired properties, in view of the same issue already been framed at issue No.8 which is cast upon defendant Nos.4, 6 and 7 to prove. 6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 7. On careful perusal of the issues, it is seen that the onus of proving issue No.8 framed by the trial Court is upon defendant Nos.4, 6 and 7 with regard to item Nos.1 to 8 of the counter claim properties are ancestral properties, as contended by them in the written statement. To this counter claim, it appears that the plaintiffs have filed statement of objections contending that item Nos.1 and 6 of the written statement schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 No.3 (now transposed as plaintiff No.2). Therefore, I do not find any conflict in the issues framed, as the issues framed are based on the pleadings made by the parties to the proceedings before the Court. 8. In this aspect, it could be relevant to extract Order XIV Rules 1 to 3 of CPC hereunder: "1. Framing of issues.─ (1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 written statements, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence. xxxxxxx 3. Materials from which issues may be framed.─The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials.─ (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; (c) the contents of documents produced by either party." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 9. Based on the above extracted provision, the trial Court would frame the issues on the basis of the allegations made by one party and denied by the other party before the suit proceedings. In the present case on hand, the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed I.A. under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC to amend and strike out the issues. Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC reads as under: "5. Power to amend and strike out issues.─ (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." 10. On careful perusal of the contentions put-forth by the parties, the allegations and counter allegations made both to the plaint as well as the counter claim and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 written statement, the trial Court framed issue No.16 based on the allegation and counter claim made and the objections to the counter claim. 11. Under the circumstances, since issue No.16 is framed based on the material allegation made by the plaintiffs to the effect that item Nos.1 and 6 of the written statement schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.3, who is now transposed as plaintiff No.2, I do not find any illegality or perversity in framing the said issue No.16, so also, the order passed by the trial Court on the said application rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs for striking out the issues or altering issues. 12. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.2 that petitioner No.2, on the earlier occasion, has preferred an appeal before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.1744/2024, whereby he has challenged an - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order on the same on 28.10.2024, wherein at para-12, it has held as under: "12. It is also important to note that when the suit is filed for the relief of partition, wherein application is made for counter claim, the Trial Court also while passing the order taken note of the fact that counter claim is also made in respect of item No.1 in the written statement of defendant No.5 and to that effect also, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that when the property was purchased in the name of defendant No.3, he was minor and the same is taken note by the Trial Court. Having considered the document of sale deed and learned counsel appearing for the appellant not disputes the fact that he was a minor at the time of purchasing the property in the name of defendant No.3. Whether it is a self-acquired property or an ancestral property joint family property also cannot be decided while considering the application before the Trial Court." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41456 WP No. 19775 of 2025 13. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity involved in the order dated 11.06.2025 passed on IA.No.46 in O.S.No.1990/2018 by LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6