- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.14279/2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAGADGURU MURUGHARAJENDRA BRUHANMATHA, BY IS MATHADHIPATHI P.B. ROAD, CHITRADURGA -577 502. 2. SRI SRIMAN NIRANJANA JAGADGURU SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHARAJENDRA SWAMIGALU, NOW KNOWN AS SRI. SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS MATHADHIPATHI OF SRI JAGADGURU MURUGARAJENDRA BRUHANMATHA P.B. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 502. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MURALI B.S. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. MALLIKARJUN SWAMY HIREMATH S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/A BLOCK ALIG FLAT, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 096. 2. SRI. VISHWANATH HIREMATH S/O MANTAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.908/A, 7TH MAIN 7TH CROSS, PRAKASH NAGAR BANGALORE-560 021. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 3. SRI. RUDRESH S/O LATE PHALAKSHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, IST A CROSS MUDALAPALYA N.V.G. NAGAR BANGALORE-560 072. 4. SRI. S.K. BASAVARAJAN S/O KARISIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SIR JAGADGURU MURUGHARAJENDRA BRUHANMATHA EX-PA. HOLDER OF DEFENDANT NO.2 AND EX-ADMINISTRATOR OF DEFENDANT NO.1 P.B. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 502. 5. SRI. SARPABHUSHANA SHIVAYOGIGALA MUTT TRUST, KEMPEGOWDA CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.R. GURUMURTHY, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 R4 SERVED UNREPRESENTED SRI. AJAY KUMAR M, ADV., FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.27.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 56) AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.5057/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-D. CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE TO FRAME ADDITIONAL ISSUE REGARDING JURISDICTION AS REQUIRED AND THEN PROCEED FURTHER & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.07.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.11.2020 passed in O.S.No.5057/2007 by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH- 56) (for short, 'the Trial Court'). 2. Sri.Murali B.S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No.2 has seized to be the Matadhipathi of defendant No.1- Mutt, declaration that the defendant No.2 is not competent to deal with or interfere with the management and administration of defendant No.4-Trust. In the said suit, a written statement was filed specifically contending that the suit instituted in Bengaluru has no jurisdiction and later, it was amended. It is submitted that in the amended written statement, again it was specifically averred that the Bengaluru Court has no territorial jurisdiction and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 requested the Trial Court to frame an additional issue on territorial jurisdiction which came to be erroneously rejected by the Trial Court under the impugned order by recording the finding on merits of jurisdiction which is contrary to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’). It is further submitted that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is raised at the earliest point in the written statement as well as the amended written statement. It is also submitted that allowing the amendment to the written statement without any condition would relate back to the filing of the original written statement. Hence, the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 at the initial stage of the proceedings is required to be framed and tried by the Trial Court. It is contended that the Trial Court has every power to add the issues, alter the issues under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, at any stage and since the stage of the suit is for cross-examination of PW-1, the Trial Court ought to have framed the issue on territorial - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 jurisdiction. It is further contended that unless the defendant raises the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the suit, he cannot raise the said issue in revision or appeal as per Section 21 of the CPC. It is also contended that paragraphs 19, 21 and 32 of the plaint indicate that the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is at Chitradurga and by showing some cause of action, the suit is filed which is not maintainable. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1975 Kar.L.J. 33 (SN) and seeks to allow the writ petition by directing the Trial Court to frame the additional issue on territorial jurisdiction and try the same. 3. Per contra, Sri.G.R.Gurumath, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Aravind V.Chavan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the initial stage of the proceedings. The suit summons was served - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 on the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in 2008, they entered appearance and they filed written statement on 06.03.2018 which is after nearly 10 years and the said written statement also does not clearly state with regard to the territorial jurisdiction and only when the written statement was amended, an assertion is made with regard to the territorial jurisdiction which is impermissible. It is submitted that the defendant No.1-Mutt had a branch at Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. It has immovable properties. Even the defendant No.2-Pontiff resides in the said Branch. Hence, as per proviso to Section 16 of the CPC, the Bengaluru Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. It is further submitted that without standing on the technicalities, the Court may order the Trial Court to frame the issue on territorial jurisdiction and try along with other issues as per Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC. It is also submitted that raising an objection of territorial jurisdiction is to drag on the proceedings and such objection was raised after commencement of the trial - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 which is impermissible. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of JAGADGURU SRI ABHINAVA SADASHIVANAND SWAMIGALU @ SADASHIVAANAND BHARATHI SWAMIGALU Vs. SHRI JAGADGURU (ABHINAVA) SHIVAND SWAMY1 and seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. Sri.Ajay Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 also supports the impugned order and submits that the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited and the Trial Court, by taking note of Section 21 of the CPC has rightly rejected the prayer for additional issues which cannot be interfered lightly in the proceedings as the defendants failed to raise the jurisdictional issue at the initial stage of the proceedings and now the matter is posted for trial. It is submitted that seeking a prayer to frame an additional issue on the territorial jurisdiction is 1 W.P.No.108732/2025 dt. 23.06.26 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches and that the trial has proceeded. It is further submitted that the defendants had a remedy under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking for return of plaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction which is also not availed by them, which clearly establishes that the petitioners- defendants are making effort to obstruct the proceedings before the Trial Court. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed O.S.No.5057/2007 seeking the relief of declaration that defendant No.2 has seized to be the Matadhipathi of the defendant No.1-Mutt and that he cannot continue to do so - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 and further declaration that the defendant No.2 is not competent to deal with or interfere with the management and administration of the defendant No.4-Trust. To substantiate the said prayer, the plaintiffs have made some factual assertions in the body of the plaint which can be noticed from paragraphs 19 to 22 of the plaint. Paragraph 32 of the plaint refers to the cause of action for institution of the suit. The said paragraph refers to four instances where the cause of action arose and instance (c) refers to the cause of action that on starting alienating defendant No.1 Mutt properties and interfering with the management and administration of the defendant No.4- Trust. The said cause of action referred in the said paragraph refers to interference of the defendant No.1 in the defendant No.4-Trust and admittedly, the defendant No.4-Trust is situated in Bengaluru. 7. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit and they filed written statement on - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 06.03.2018. A perusal of the written statement indicates that the defendants had denied the plaint averments of paragraph 33 and further averred that the prayer of the plaintiffs deals with the defendant No.2 being the Mathadipathi of the defendant No.1-Mutt and as such, they are entitled to control the affairs of the Mutt. In these circumstances, the institution of suit in Bengaluru is not proper. The aforesaid assertion in the written statement cannot be termed as a specific objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Bengaluru. The written statement of the said defendants was amended and in the amended written statement at paragraph 44, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have specifically averred that the Trial Court at Bengaluru has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and continue with the same relief No.(a) in the main relief. Hence, the suit may be dismissed on this ground. It is only in the amended written statement that a specific plea of territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Bengaluru was raised. It is - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 required to be noticed at this stage that the instant suit was filed on 02.04.2007, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were served with the suit summons in the year 2008. 8. It is further required to be noticed that the suit was proceeded further and the matter was posted for plaintiffs’ evidence and thereafter, an application in I.A.No.8 is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking permission to file the written statement which came to be allowed on 06.03.2018 on payment of cost and thereafter, the written statement was filed. It is also required to be noticed that the written statement was filed after 10 years from the date of service of summons on the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their appearance before the Trial Court. The records further indicate that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement on 21.12.2019 which came to be allowed and the written statement was amended on 29.01.2020 raising - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 a specific plea of territorial jurisdiction. The Trial Court had framed the issues on 28.10.2019. 9. The records indicate that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have made an oral prayer before the Trial Court to frame the additional issue on territorial jurisdiction. The Trial Court heard the parties on the prayer of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to frame the additional issue on territorial jurisdiction and proceeded to reject the said prayer under the impugned order by recording the reason that the objection of jurisdiction is not raised at the first instance and for other reasons. It is required to be noticed that the raising of objection on territorial jurisdiction specifically in the amended written statement which is filed after more than 10 years from the date of appearance of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court, cannot be called as raising objection on territorial jurisdiction at the initial stage of the proceedings. If the defendant Nos.1 and 2 genuinely intended to raise the - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 issue of territorial jurisdiction before the Trial Court, they ought to have filed the written statement immediately after their appearance, raising the said issue and they could have filed an application seeking to frame an additional issue on territorial jurisdiction. The conduct of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in belated filing of the written statement disentitles them from raising the issue of territorial jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the petitioners cannot ask the Trial Court to frame the issue on territorial jurisdiction after a decade of their appearance before the Trial Court that too when the matter was posted for trial. 10. Even on merits on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, it is required to be noticed that the plaintiffs have sought the relief of declaration that the defendant No.2 has seized to be a Mathadipathi of the defendant No.1-Mutt and that he cannot continue to be so and further relief of declaration that the defendant No.2 is not competent to deal with or interfere with the management - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 of the defendant No.4-Trust. The suit schedule property is shown within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City. The cause of action in the plaint indicates several instances and one of the causes of action has arisen in Bengaluru as per the plaint averments. Hence, in my considered view, the Bengaluru Court has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit in question. In addition, it is also required to take note of the submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 had a branch at Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, it has immovable property at Bengaluru and the defendant No.2-Pontiff also resides at the Bengaluru Mutt. In view of the said submissions which are not specifically denied by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, I am of the view that the Bengaluru Court has the jurisdiction to decide the suit. Section 16 of the CPC provides that a suit is to be instituted where the subject matter is situated and if a suit is for determination of rights or interest of immovable property, then the suit shall be instituted before the Court - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010379232020 NC: 2026:KHC:37730 W.P. No.14279/2020 within the local limits in whose jurisdiction the property is situated. In the case on hand, admittedly the defendant No.4-Trust is situated in Bengaluru and the defendant No.1-Trust had a branch as well as immovable properties in Bengaluru City. Hence, the Bengaluru Court has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. In view of the aforesaid analysis the decision referred by the learned senior counsel for the respondents need not be gone into. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1