- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2197 WP No. 4632 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4632 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. PARASH V SHAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE VEERENDRA H SHAH, RESIDENT OF NO. 328/35, VEER MAHAL, FIRST FLOOR, 58TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BIJAL J SHAH W/O. LATE SRI. JAYDEEP V SHAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO. 328/35, VEER MAHAL, FIRST FLOOR, 58TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 2. KUM. AISHWARYA J. SHAH D/O. LATE SRI. JAYDEEP V SHAH, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, 3. MASTER. JEET. J. SHAH S/O. LATE SRI. JAYDEEP V SHAH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, R-2 & R-3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY ITS NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E., MOTHER THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 NAMED ABOVE, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2197 WP No. 4632 of 2024 RESIDENT OF NO. 328/35, VEER MAHAL, FIRST FLOOR, 58TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NATARAJA.H.T, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23/11/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-45) ON IA NO. 4 IN OS NO. 5214/2021 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.5214/2021 on the file of the XLIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 23.11.2023, whereby the application I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner – 1st defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of an additional issue was rejected by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – 1st defendant and other defendants for partition and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2197 WP No. 4632 of 2024 separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, the trial court framed the following issues; “ 1. Does the plaintiff proves that suit item No.1 property has been jointly acquired by her late husband, the D.1 and 2 during the lifetime of her husband, the D.2 had executed release deed dated 01.02.2007 by releasing his 1/3rd share having over it in favour of her husband, as her husband died intestate by leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs, she is entitled for 2/3rd share in the Suit Item no.1 Property? 2. Does the plaintiff proves that suit item No.1 property has been jointly acquired by her late husband, the D.1 and 2 during the lifetime of her husband, the D.2 had executed release deed dated 14.02.2007 by releasing his 1/3rd share having over it in favour of her husband and defendant no.1, as her husband died intestate by leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs, thus the plaintiffs are jointly entitled for 1/2 and defendant no.1 entitled for ½ share in the Suit Item no.2 Property? 3. Does the plaintiff proves that the suit item no.3 property has been acquired jointly by her late husband, D.1 and 2 herein, as her husband died by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2197 WP No. 4632 of 2024 leaving the plaintiff as his class one legal heir, thus the plaintiff is jointly entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit item no.3 property ? 4. Does the plaintiff proves that she's entitled for the mense profits ? 5. Does the plaintiff is entitled for relief sought in the suit ? 6. What Order or decree?” 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking recasting of one additional issue as hereunder; “ Do the defendants prove that, they are the joint owners/ joint tenants of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties and not co-owners/tenants-in-common as per Section 44 of Transfer of property 1882, as such after interstate death of one joint owner, the other remaining joint owners succeed to estate of deceased joint owner ?” 4. The said application having been opposed by the respondents - plaintiffs, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner-1st defendant is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2197 WP No. 4632 of 2024 6. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court committed an error in averting to the rival contentions of the parties on merits without appreciating that for the purpose of considering an application for framing of additional issue, it is the pleadings of the parties that would have to determine whether any additional issue required to be framed. In this context, having regard to the specific plea put forth by the petitioner – 1st defendant who sought to cast the burden of proving the additional issue on the defendants themselves, it cannot be said that the additional issue did not emerge or arise from the pleadings of the parties and consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing I.A.No.4 is contrary to the provisions contained in Order 14 CPC as well as the material on record, thereby occasioning failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 7. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2197 WP No. 4632 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.5214/2021 is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.4 filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC is hereby allowed. (iv) The trial Court is directed to frame additional issue as sought for in I.A.No.4 by the petitioner – 1st defendant. (v) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.