- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19417 W.P. No.19218/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.19218/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITHA M.S. W/O NAGANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 2. SRI. NAGANAGOUDA V. PATIL S/O VEERANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NO.24 7TH CROSS, J.C. NAGAR BENGALURU-560086. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR B.S. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. C. KEMPARANGAIAH S/O LATE CHINNIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS REPTD. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. K. RANGANATHAIAH S/O C. KEMPARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.479, AASHIRVADA 1ST MAIN ROAD, TALAKAVERI LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI BENGALURU-560092. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19417 W.P. No.19218/2021 2. SRI. H. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.66/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD 7TH CROSS, BHOVIPALYA MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU-560086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA, ADV., FOR SRI. RANGA SWAMY B, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:27.10.2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS WAIVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.8097/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU. QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 8.10.2021 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, IN O.S.NO.8097/2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-F & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19417 W.P. No.19218/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.10.2021 passed on I.A. in O.S.No.8097/2018 by the III Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri.Anil Kumar B.S., learned counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.2 & 3 and Sri.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for Sri.Ranga Swamy B., learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff. 3. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.8097/2018 have filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking prayer to recast the issue by framing additional issue. The trial Court, under the impugned order, rejected the said application by recording the finding that the suit is for bare injunction and whether - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19417 W.P. No.19218/2021 the suit is maintainable or not is required to be gone into based on the pleading and evidence adduced by the parties. 4. It is to be noticed that the respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for injunction against the petitioner. In the said proceedings, the petitioners filed a written statement denying the assertion made in the plaint. After completion of the trial, at the stage of arguments, an application came to be filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.2 & 3 to recast the issue by framing an additional issue. The additional issue sought, reads as under: "Whether the suit of the plaintiff for the permanent injunction is maintainable in the absence of relief for declaration of title in view of pleadings at para No.4 and 5 of the written statement?" 5. It is also to be noticed that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is for bare injunction and the plaintiff is required to establish his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and seek relief. Whether the suit for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19417 W.P. No.19218/2021 permanent injunction is maintainable in the absence of relief for declaration of title in view of the pleadings at para Nos.4 and 5 of the written statement is required to be adjudicated by the trial Court based on the pleadings and evidence on record. 6. The trial Court by recording the finding that suit is only for injunction, held that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the possession and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. I am of the view that the trial Court is fully justified in rejecting the application filed for recasting the issue. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly rejected. The trial Court shall take note of the averments made in the written statement while deciding the suit. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22