- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17885 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI AMIT ROY S/O LATE ASHIT ROY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.CTS 114, JAYAMAHAL ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 046. PRESENTLY R/AT: MANTRI ESPANA APARTMENTS, I BLOCK, APARTMENT NO.801, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANGADH KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: LATE H.H. JYOTENDRA SINHJI VIKRAMSINHJI (SINCE DEAD REPRESNTED BY HIS LR) 1. H.H. MAHARARI KUMUD KUMARI W/O LATE H.H. JOTENDR SINGHJI VIKRAMSINHJI AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS. 2. H.H. MAHARAJAH SHRI HIMANSHUSINHJI JYOTENDRASINHJI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: HUZUR PALACE, PALACE ROAD GONDAL – 360 31. RAJKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S. SREEVATSAVA SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA.C. AND SRI. MAHESH ARKALGUD, ADVOCATES FOR C/R-1 & R-2) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED ON IA NO. 12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 3 (A) AND (c) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN OS NO. 38/2015 BY THE HONBLE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-14), BANGALORE. 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 ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.38/2015 on the file of the XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 05.03.2024, whereby the application I.A.No.12 filed by the petitioner-defendant seeking framing of two additional issues was rejected by the trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 having been contested by the petitioner, the trial Court has framed the following issues; “(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged obstruction caused by the defendants? (iii) Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC? (iv) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (v) Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable? (vi) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper? (vii) What order or decree?” Subsequently, at the stage of further cross-examination of PW-1, the petitioner filed the instant application which was opposed by the respondents and culminated in the impugned order rejecting the application as hereunder; “ ORDER ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO XII As per the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 12190/2023 dated 27.6.2023, this suit is to be disposed of on or before 21.12.2023 and since it could not have been possible for disposal of the said suit on or before 21.12.2023. my learned Predecessor in office has addressed a letter to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 21.12.2023 for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 extension of time for disposal of the said suit. When the matter stood posted for hearing on IA No 11 the defendant has filed Interlocutory Application No XII under Order XIV Rule 3(a) and (c) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying this Court to frame additional issues mentioned in the application 2. In support of the above said application at IA No. XII. the defendant has sworn to an affidavit and stated that the plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs of permanent injunction against the Defendant and or his Agents, anybody claiming under through him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties, to restrain the Defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of the schedule properties at item 1 by the Plaintiff more fully described at item 1 of the schedule and prevent the Defendant from threatening or invading the Plaintiff's right in and over the schedule properties described as item 1 by way of permanent perpetual injunction, to Restrain the Defendant by issuing appropriate direction/injunction/ orders restraining the Defendant from presenting, prosecuting any matters oppressive and vexatious against the Plaintiff in respect of properties bearing No. 1, 1/1, 1 /2,1 /3, 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 situated at Jayamahal Road, flangalore-560 046, formerly in Survey Nos 32 and 38 (Old Survey Nos 66 and 65) measuring 19 acre and 18 guntas, respectively in the village of Ooparapad in the Ulsoor Hobli Bangalore with Bungalow. out- house and other building thereon, formerly known as "Arani Hall" now known as "Jayamahal Palace Hotel" together with the fixture thereto. It is further stated that he has filed W.P. No.43994/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court to set aside the Order of this Court in IA. No.7 where he has prayed for an Order to allow framing an issue "Whether the Plaintiff - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 proves his Title as owner of the suit schedule properties?: the Hon'ble High Court is referring to the decisions of the apex court in NAGARA PALIKA VS. JIND JAGATSINGH, 1995(3) SCC 426, JHARKAND ARY STATE HOUSING BOARD VS DIDAR SINGH, 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2170 & VENKATASWAMY VS NARAYANA. A. AIR 2002 KAR 326: however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already affirmed the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.35358/2017 in O.S.No. 1963/2002 where the Hon'ble High Court has allowed his application on 04.09.2019 when he has seriously objected to the execution of the Sale Deed dated 07.08.1918 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP ( c ) No.27345/ 2019 to set aside the clarification of the Hon'ble High Court dated 04.09.2019 and therefore the order has reached finality marked Ex. D-11 in OS.No. 1963/2002 which clearly proves that the title of the suit schedule property is in the name of Srinivas Raju Gabriel; the plaintiff has not marked any document till date before this Court in OS. No. 1963/2002 and this suit to prove that the suit schedule property has been sold by Srinivas Raju Gabriel or heirs to any other party, Suit Schedule Property as the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued a clarification that the observations on the unsigned sale deed dated 07.08.1918 in Para No.13 will not foreclose any finding of the Trial Court regarding the execution of the Sale Deed dated 07.08.1918 as the defendant/respondent has pointed out before the Hon'ble High Court that "EXECUTANT UNWILLING TO AFFIX" is part of the recitals of the Sale Deed; the plaintiff has already admitted in his cross-examination on 20.09.2016 in O.S.No. 1963/2002 that he has not produced any documents to prove the identity and division of properties as shown in Ex. P-1, till date in view of the contradictory pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant in the plaint and the written statement pertaining to the possession of the suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 properties and insufficient evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove the division and identity of multiple properties, it is very much necessary to frame additional issues and accordingly prayed for allow the application. 3. As against the above said application at IA. No. XII, the plaintiff has not filed any objections to this IA.No.XII. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following Points arise for my consideration - POINTS (1) Whether the I.A. No.XII filed by the defendant under Order XIV Rule 3(a) and (c) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deserves to be allowed? (2) What order? 5. Heard the arguments of the Counsel for both the sides on I.A. No.XII. Perused the records. 6. My findings on the above Points are as under - POINT No.1 Negative, POINT No.2 As per final order ,for the following REASONS 7. POINT NO.1 On careful perusal of the material available on record, it appears to me that the plaintiff has filed this instant suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, anybody claiming under through him from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, restraining the defendant from threatening or invading the plaintiff's right in and over the schedule property at item No. 1, restraining the defendant from - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 presenting, prosecuting any matters oppressive and vexatious against the plaintiff in respect of properties bearing Nos. 1. 1/1, 1/2 1/3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 situated at Jayamahal Road, formerly in Sy. No.32 and 38 respectively in the village of Ooparpad in the Ulsoor Hobli, Bangalore with Bungalow, Out- house and other building thereon, formerly house on know as Jayamahal Palace Hotel and for the such other reliefs. 8. When the matter stood posted for hearing on I.A No.11, the defendant has come up with instant application praying this Court to frame additional issues sought for in the application. By way of filing instant application the defendant requested this court to prove additional issue casting burden of proving the said issue on the plaintiff to prove his title and another issue casting burden on him to prove his possession over the entire suit schedule property mentioned in the schedule. Admittedly, the instant suit is filed by relief of permanent injunction in respect of commissioner premises bearing No. 1. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 formerly in Sy. No.32 and 38 measuring 19 acres and 18 guntas in the village of Ooparbad in the Ulsoor Hobli, Bangalore in ward No.92 part of Jayamahal Palace Hotel, measuring North to South 92 + 118 and East to West 133 + 157 feet together with fixtures. Since the plaintiff has claimed relief of injunction, issue relating the title cannot be framed. Further, the defendant in his written statement no where sought for any kind of relief by way of counter claim. In the absence of claiming relief by way of counter claim, the proposed issue No.2 regarding possession of plaintiff over the entire suit property cannot be framed. The issues which are already framed in this suit are sufficient to give effective findings in respect of the dispute involved in the suit. The framing of proposed issues one claimed by the defendant is not at all necessary. The reasons assigned by the defendant in his - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 affidavit, annexed with the application is not sufficient to allow the application Accordingly, Point No. 1 answered in ‘negative ‘. 9. POINT No.2: For my reasons and discussion on the above Point, I proceed to pass the following - ORDER I.A. No.XII filed on behalf of the defendant under Order XIV Rule 3(a) and (c) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is hereby rejected. There shall be no order as to costs, so far as I.A. No. XII is concerned.” 4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be opposite to refer to an earlier order passed by this Court in an earlier round of litigation in relation to the application seeking framing of the very same additional issue pertaining to title, among many other issues, which was disposed of by this Court by holding as under; “The petitioner being the defendant in O.S.No.38/2015 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 2.8.2018 whereby his application in I.A.No.7 filed under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, for framing of additional issues has been rejected by the learned 31st Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The contesting respondent has entered caveat through the counsel and opposed the writ petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the fact matrix of the suit, the issues that have been framed by the trial Court would not be sufficient for a final and complete adjudication of the lis in the suit; in more or less similar fact matrix, the Apex Court and this Court have held that the issues on the lines of ones proposed to the Court below ought to have been framed; non framing of proposed issues would cause material prejudice to the petitioner. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the writ petition. In support of his contention, he banks upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of NAGARA PALIKA .VS. JIND JAGATSINGH, 1995(3) SCC 426; JHARKAND STATE HOUSING BOARD VS. DIDAR SINGH, 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2170 & VENKATASWAMY .VS. NARAYANA. A, AIR 2002 KAR 326. 3. Learned counsel for the Caveator respondent per contra submits that the proposed issues are not necessary for adjudication of the suit; the issues already framed by the Court vide order dated 12.1.2017 look after all the contentions in the case; ordinarily, it is for the trial Court to decide in its wisdom as to what issue should be framed and whether the issues proposed by the parties are relevant; if at all, non framing of the issues causes prejudice to the case of the petitioner, he can lay a challenge to the decree on that ground, if at all, he suffers one. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the petition papers. 5. Arguably, the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner lay down the principles as to framing of issues in a suit proceeding, is true. The Court below by a considered order running into 12 pages having favoured petitioner’s application in I.A.No.7 partly as to framing of the additional issue relating to authority of the PA holder to file the suit, has refused to frame the additional issue as to the validity of revenue documents concerning the subject property. The Court below has adverted to the principles relating to framing of issue. 6. Secondly, if at all the non framing of the additional issues results into petitioner suffering a decree, it is always open to him to urge the same as a ground in the appeal laying challenge to the decree as provided under Section 105 read with Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908. This apart it is also open to the petitioner to make similar application again at appropriate stage of the suit, if and when the same becomes necessary. Thus, there is no immediate justification for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off with the observations made hereinabove.” 5. While passing the impugned order, the trial Court has taken into account the earlier order passed by this Court referred to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 supra and the trial court has come to the correct conclusion that having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the proposed additional issues would not arise for consideration in the suit. It is also relevant to state that in the aforesaid order dated 18.06.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.43994/2018 supra, liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner-defendant to seek framing of additional issues if and when the same becomes necessary and the same would necessarily have to be construed and treated as reserving liberty in favour of the parties to seek framing of additional issues pursuant to the amendment of pleadings and in the absence of any amendment to pleadings, the said observation passed by this Court in W.P.No.43994/2018 cannot be understood as having given liberty in favour of the petitioner to file one more application and his contention in this regard cannot be accepted. 6. Insofar as the proposed additional Issue No. 2 is concerned, the said issue is already covered by Issue No. 1 which casts the burden upon the respondents-plaintiffs to prove that they were in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and consequently, even the proposed additional issue as regards possession would not arise, since the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3122 WP No. 17885 of 2024 same stands covered by Issue No.1 as originally framed by the trial Court. 7. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of all the issues, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition without interfering with the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including all issues already framed by the trial court are kept open. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.