- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:346 WP No. 26214/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26214/2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O. LATE HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SRI GANGAPPA S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MARASANDRA VILLAGE MADHURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KALEEM ULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE FOR NARENDRA KUMAR G T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. M D SUNANDABAI W/O LATE M.H. NARAYAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.29, 3RD CROSS SUBEDARPALYA YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU - 560022. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HEMANTH R. RAO., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:346 WP No. 26214/2025 ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, IN OS NO. 186/2024 ON IA UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 OF CPC DATED 05.07.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.186/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 05.07.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC to frame an additional issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the suit and to treat the said issue as a preliminary issue, was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:346 WP No. 26214/2025 aforesaid suit against the petitioners/defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the petitioners/defendants entered appearance and not only filed the written statement, but also put forth a counterclaim for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property. In the said counterclaim, the petitioners/defendants valued the counterclaim at Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) and took up a contention that, since the maximum upper limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court was only Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in term of Section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, the Trial Court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit and the counterclaim. 4. Despite the petitioners having taken up such contention regarding lack/want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the Trial Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit, the Trial Court did not frame any issues in this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:346 WP No. 26214/2025 regard and as such, accordingly, the petitioners/defendants filed the instant application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC seeking framing of additional issue regarding lack/want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the Trial Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit and to treat the said additional issue as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the matter. The said application having been opposed by the respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court byway of the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that, since the petitioners had taken up a specific contention/defence as regards lack/want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the Trial Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit and the counterclaim, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application and an additional issue deserves to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:346 WP No. 26214/2025 framed in this regard by setting aside the impugned order. However, on instructions he submits that insofar as treating the said additional issue as preliminary issue is concerned, since the trial in the suit and the counterclaim has already commenced, the said additional issue may be directed to be decided along with all other issues at the time of final disposal of the suit. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on instructions submits that, he has no objection for the impugned order passed by the Trial Court to be set aside and an additional issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction being framed in the suit and the counterclaim and by directing the Trial Court to decide all issues including the additional issue at the time of final disposal of the suit. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances and joint submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and dispose of the application filed by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:346 WP No. 26214/2025 petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC dated 20.11.2024 by issuing certain directions. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, in O.S.No.186/2024 vide Annexure-E is hereby set-aside. iii. The application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC is partly allowed and an additional issue is framed as hereunder: ADDITIONAL ISSUE "Whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that the Trial Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit and the counterclaim?" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:346 WP No. 26214/2025 iv. The Trial Court shall frame the aforesaid additional issue and proceed further with the matter and dispose of the suit in accordance with law by rendering findings on all issues including the additional issues so framed above. v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in respect of all issues including additional issues. vi. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter and all issues including the additional issues are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/ demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MRP/PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10