- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9457 WP No. 24889 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24889 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR T.N.RAMAIAH S/O LATE JAGALI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT NO.27, TAVAREKRE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 562 130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHANTH. A.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.T.R.YASHODAMMA D/O SRI T N RAMAIAH W/O LATE T N GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HARSHA NILAYA THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU – 560 073. 2. SMT. T.R. SAVITHA D/O SRI T N RAMAIAH W/O SRI GANGA RAJU AGED ABOUT 465 YEARS, R/AT HARSHA NILAYA THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU – 560 073. 3. SRI. T.R. MANJUNATHA S/O SRI T N RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.227, TAVAREKRE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, AND POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562 130. Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9457 WP No. 24889 of 2024 4. SRI.M.LOHITH S/O H.C.MUKUND AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.227, TAVAREKRE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, AND POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 562 130. 5. SMT. T.R.UMA D/O T N RAMAIAH W/O K C PAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF KEMPA LINGANAHALLI NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123. 6. SMT. T.R. LATHA D/O SRI T N RAMAIAH W/O C R RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDENT OF TAVAREKRE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, AND POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 562 130. 7. SMT. T.R.NIRMAMA D/O SRI T N RAMAIAH W/O CHIKKARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF TAVAREKRE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, AND POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 562 130. 8. SMT. L.NAGARATHNA W/O T.R. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.227 TAVAREKERE VILLAGE HOBLI AND POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 562 130. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9457 WP No. 24889 of 2024 9. SRI. M. RAGHAV S/O T R MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT NO.227 TAVAREKERE VILLAGE HOBLI AND POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562 130. 10. SRI. H.C.MUKUNDA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.361 VAJARAHALI MARUTHINAGAR BEHIND THOMAS SCHOOL NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL-562123 (NOTE: DEFENDANT NO.4 MR. MASTER VIVEK HAS EXPIRED ON 04.07.2023 AND HIS LEGAL HEIR- MR.M.LOHITH IS ARRAYED AS DEFENDANT NO.3/ RESPONDENT NO.3. THEREFORE, DEFENDANT NO.4 IS NOT MADE AS A PARTY IN THE PRESENT PETITION.) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP J.S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.09.2024, NOTICE TO R3 TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS NO. 586/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.7.24 ON IA NO. 29 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI, IN OS NO. 586/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. 29 FILED IN OS NO. 586/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI DTD 11.07.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9457 WP No. 24889 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant No.1 in OS.No.586/2014 is directed against the impugned order dated 11.07.2024, whereby the application i.e., I.A.No.29 filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking framing of additional issue relating to valuation and court fee was rejected by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/ plaintiffs against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and other defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties, the petitioner/defendant No.1 took up various defences including contending that the suit had not been properly valued and that the court fee paid is insufficient as can be seen from paragraph No.5 of the written statement filed by the petitioner. \ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9457 WP No. 24889 of 2024 3. Despite the said specifically urged/put forth by the petitioner/defendant No.1, there was no issue pertaining to valuation and court fee, which prompted the petitioner to file the instant application i.e., I.A.No.29 seeking framing of additional issue relating to valuation and court fee. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the specific averments made in the written statement, in particular, paragraph No.5 wherein the petitioner had specifically contended that the suit had not been properly valued and the court fee paid was insufficient, thereby leading to sole conclusion that a issue in this regard ought to have been framed by the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9457 WP No. 24889 of 2024 5. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting IA.No.29 as occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 11.07.2024, whereby the application i.e., I.A.No.29 filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC is hereby set aside. I.A.No.29 stands allowed. (iii) The trial Court is directed to frame the following additional issue and proceed further in the matter. Additional Issue: “Whether the suit has been properly valued and whether the court fee paid is sufficient?” Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5