- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:619 WP No. 36635 of 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.36635 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K M LOKESH SON OF SRI.K.MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MYLARALINGESWARA NILAYA, P & T SUB ROAD, HOLALKERE MAIN ROAD, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. 2. SMT.K.T.JAYAMMA W/O LATE A.T.DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.689, NEAR NETRAVATHI HOTEL, ANJANEYA BHADAVANE, DAVANAGERE – 577 005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR G.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. H N HARSHALATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WIFE OF SURENDRA KUMAR S., RESIDING AT NO.17 (NEW NO.3),’O’ 4TH STREET, K. KAMARAJA ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE-560 042. 2. SMT. VINODHA A. AGE: MAJOR WIFE OF A.VENKATACHALA, NO.132, BEML LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 079. Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:619 WP No. 36635 of 2025 3. SRI.SHIVARAJU FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O RESIDING AT NO.17, (NEW NO.3), “O” 4TH STREET, K. KAMARAJA ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE-560 042. 4. THE COMMISSIONER BHRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE BANGALORE – 560 002. 5. SMT. SHILPA ASHOK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WIFE OF R.ASHOK KUMAR RESIDING AT NO.19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SANJEEVININAGAR, MOODALAPALYA BENGALURU – 560 072 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADV. FOR R4; SRI. M. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADV. FOR C/R-5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ANNX-A) DATED 15.11.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN IA NO.2/25 OS NO.6014/2015 AND ETC. THIS 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 the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6014/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:619 WP No. 36635 of 2025 I.A.No.II/2025 whereby the said application filed by the petitioners – plaintiffs under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC to frame additional issues was rejected by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the said suit having been filed by the petitioners – plaintiffs for declaration, mandatory injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule property, respondent No.5, who is the sole contesting respondent having filed the written statement, both parties adduce evidence and the matter was posted for final arguments, at that stage, the petitioner moved the instant application – I.A.No.II/2025 seeking permission to frame additional issues, as under: “(i) Whether defendant No.5 proves that the suit schedule property is (Old Sy.17, New Sy.No.143 in the name of Chikka Thimmaiah) to an extent of 4 Acres, was acquired for benefit of HBCSL by BDA? (ii) Whether defendant No.5 proves that BDA has approved the modified layout plan as alleged in the Written Statement and same is existing till date? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:619 WP No. 36635 of 2025 (iii) Whether the defendant No.5 proves that the suit schedule property is existing in NGEF Layout as alleged in Written Statement?” 4. The said application having been opposed by respondent No.5 – defendant No.5, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.II/2025, aggrieved by which the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that there were pleadings by the parties, which warranted framing of the proposed additional issues as sought for by the petitioners and without taking into account of the same, the Trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, which is contrary to the well settled principles of law governing framing of issues and contrary to the provisions contained in Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. 6. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the written statement, respondent No.5 – defendant No.5 has stated as under: “Para 4 – It is submitted that, the averments made in Para No.4 of the plaint that after securing registered sale - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:619 WP No. 36635 of 2025 deed in respect to the suit property and after the death of the 2nd plaintiff's husband, the plaintiff’s applied with BBMP i.e, 4th defendant authority for the change of katha in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendant officials after verification of the documents and after spot inspection that the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property has transferred the katha in the name of the plaintiffs and since from the date of the transfer of katha till today the plaintiffs are paying the taxes to the defendant-authority without any due to that effect to prove the same without any due" is strictly and specifically denied as false and it is subject to strict proof of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff has come up with present suit with suppression of material fact and without proper identification of the suit schedule property, whether the said suit schedule property which is the subject matter of the acquisition to the Sri. Vinayaka HBCSL and hence the said suit schedule property which is subject matter to the acquisition to the Sri.Vinayaka HBCSL. Hence, the Civil Court oust the jurisdiction to go into the validity and veracity of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the LA Act of 1894. Hence, the suit on prima facie is not at all maintainable in law and on facts. Hence, the suit of plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed at threshold. Para 23 – Apart from the land acquired by Government in favour of society as above, in lieu of Society land taken to an extent of 3 acres 15 guntas by BDA for formation of 80 feet road and 150 feet ring road which passes within the boundary of the society layout plan approved in an extent of 78 acres 1 gunta land during 1992. BDA by adding same extent of 3 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:619 WP No. 36635 of 2025 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.17 (acquired area of BDA) in modified draft plan submitted by Society prior to 1996 and by incorporating the new sites in the area reserved for vegetable market in 1992 layout plan. In this context modified layout plan submitted by Society prior to 1996 has been approved by BDA in favour of Vinayaka HBCS without changing the extent and outer boundary of super seeded layout plan of 1992 with some internal modifications. Para 28 – It is submitted that, apart from the discrepancies in the sale deeds it is observed in the revenue records of the BBMP that the plaintiffs paid the property taxes from 2007 to 2015 to BBMP in respect of his property No.300 as it exists in NGEF Layout (BDA). Copy of property tax paid from 2007 to 2015 to BBMP in respect of property No.300 in NGEF Layout (BDA) by the plaintiffs is produced herein and marked as Document No.R14 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid averments made in the written statement will clearly indicate that necessary issues would have to be framed on the basis of the aforesaid submissions made in the written statement by respondent No.5 and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court declining to frame additional issues is contrary to law and facts warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:619 WP No. 36635 of 2025 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.6014/2025 on I.A.No.II/2025 by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.II/2025 is allowed. (iv) The Trial Court is directed to frame additional issues as sought for in I.A.No.II/2025 and proceed further in the matter. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45