- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 37063 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NARASIMHA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574230 2. K VENKATRAMANA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHRI RAMANA HOUSE UMABHAG D.NO.1-17-1254/5 M.D.D. LANE CHILIMBI, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT-575015 3. DAMODHARA HEGDE S/O RAMA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574230 4. SMT AMITHA HEGDE W/O K MANJUNATHA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574230 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 AND: 1. MR M V KIRAN S/O M P VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 EARS, 2. MR M V THARUN KUMAR S/O M P VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT RATHNAGIRI ESTATE MUTTIL HOUSE, WAYANAD DISTRICT KERALA STATE-673575 3. WILLIAM D’ SOUZA S/O ANTHONI D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SOUZA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D K DISTRICT-574201 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2025 ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.37/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K. CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.37/2017 MAY BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendants in O.S.No.37/2017 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., is directed against the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.7 whereby the said application filed by the petitioners – defendants under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC to frame additional two 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 defendant Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners-defendants and respondent No.3 for declaration, possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule property. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners-defendants, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims and the matter was posted for final arguments, at which stage the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the instant application seeking framing of additional two issues as under: “1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 2. Whether the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is deficit?” 4. The said application having been opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs, the Trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application by holding as under: “ORDERS PASSED ON IA NO.7 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1 TO 4 UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC This IA has been filed by the defendant no. 1 to 4 and prays to frame the additional issues which have been mentioned in the IA. 2. In support of the IA counsel for the defendant no.1 to 4 Shri. S.N.N.K. filed memo of facts and stated that at para no.12 of written statement and para no.2 of the additional written statement of defendant no.1 to 4 as well para no.3, 4 and 8 of written statement of defendant no.5 there is a specific plea of bar of suit due to Limitation had been taken. It is stated that the after thought declaratory relief etc sought at para no.8 (a) of the amended plaint regarding two registered Sale Deeds dated 07-01-1981 and dated 04-09-2008 are on the face of it barred by Limitation. The date from which the matter of bar of Limitation is to be considered is also stated by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in WP no.17225/2021(GM- CPC) as per order dated 18-10- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 2021 which aroses from IA no.3 of the present suit. It is stated that there are material propositions/plea/defense relating to bar of Limitation needs to be adjudicated as per law by framing additional issue no.1. 3. It is stated that at para no.7 of written statement at para no.4 of additional written statement of the defendant no.1 to 4 and para no.10 of written statement of defendant no.5, they have taken a specific contention of under valuation of the suit and payment of deficit Court fee. It has been stated that the marked value of subject matter of the property being more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the value of the property mentioned in the valuation slip as Rs.1,000/- is grossly incorrect and imperfect as such for this reasons it is prayed to frame the additional issue no.2 which has been mentioned in the IA with regarding to suit valuation and Court fee is concerned. Hence prays to allow the IA. 4. On the contrary counsel for the plaintiffs filed objections to the IA and stated that the IA is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is stated that the application filed is devoid of valid grounds. Further stated that in order to drag the proceedings of this case the present IA is filed. It is stated that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the Writ petition no.17225/2021 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 clearly directed to dispose of this case within 18 months and after the order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, defendants have filed the application seeking for rejection of plaint without having any valid grounds and the said application came to be dismissed by this Court. It is stated that defendants have challenged the Order passed by this Court and on the other side they have filed the present application in order to delay the disposal of this case. 5. It is stated that the suit schedule property is an agricultural property as such the Court fee which is paid on the plaint as per Sec.24(a) of Sec.7(2)(b) of the Act which is proper and correct. It is stated that earlier in IA no.6 defendants have taken the same contention of deficit payment of Court fee which was rejected by this Court by discussing the same in para no.11 of the Order passed on IA no.6. Again in order to delay the proceedings of this case the defendants without having any valid grounds have filed this application. Hence prays to dismiss IA with cost. 6. Perused the IA, objections and rest of the materials particulars available on record. Below mentioned points arisen for my consideration. POINTS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 1) Whether the defendant no.1 to 4 made out grounds to consider the IA no.9 filed under Order 14 rule 5 r/w Sec.151 of CPC and grant the relief as prayed for ? 2) What order? 7. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material particulars available on record including the IA and objections. My findings to the above points is as hereunder: Point No.1 : In the Negative. Point No. 2: As per the final order for the following: REASONS 8. Point No.1: Counsel for defendant No.1 to 4 argued that in their written statement as well additional written statement and also in the written statement of the defendant No.5, they have specifically taken the contention that the suit is barred by Limitation as well the suit is not properly valued and the plaintiffs have not paid the proper court fee on the plaint as such there is a necessity to frame the additional issues with regard to limitation point as well court fee is concerned. Hence prays to allow the IA. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 9. On the contrary, counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently argued that the intention of the defendants is just to drag the proceedings of this case. It is argued that In the writ petition No. 17225/2021, the Hon'ble High Court advised to dispose this suit within 18 months and after passing of the orders by the Hon'ble High Court, the defendants filed the IA seeking for rejection of the plaint without having valid grounds & the said application came to be dismissed by this Court in which this Court has discussed with regarding to the Limitation point as well court fee point is concerned, as such the application which is now filed by the Defendant no. 1 to 4 is devoid of merit as such prays to dismiss the IA with costs. 10. Heard counsel for both parties. Perused the IA objections and rest of the material particulars available on record. 11. On perusal of the material particulars available on record, it clarifies that earlier plaintiff filed this suit and sought for the relief of vacant possession against the defendants with respect to the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. After appearance of the defendants, they have filed the written statement. Thereafter plaintiffs got amended their pleadings & got inserted the relief of declaration stating that the sale deeds dated 07.01.1981 and 04.09.2008 are not valid and binding on the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 plaintiffs in respect of the plaint ‘A’ property and also sought direction against the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 to 4 appeared through their advocate and filed the written statement. Defendant no. 5 appeared through their advocate and filed separate written statement. 12. On perusal of the written statement & Additional written statement by the Defendant No. 1 to 4 & Defendant No.5, it clarifies that they have taken specific plea that the suit is barred by Limitation as well the Court-Fee paid on the plaint is not proper and correct. 13. On perusal of the issues framed by this Court, it clarifies that this Court has not framed the issues with regard to the Limitation as well Court fee point is concerned. 14. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds that it is essential to frame the Additional issues with regard to Limitation as well Court fee point is concerned. 15. On perusal of the records, it clarifies that defendant no.1 to 4 filed IA no.6 under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(b)(c)(d) r/w Sec.151 of CPC with a prayer to reject plaint. On contest the said application came to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 dismissed by this Court on 16-06-2023. while deciding the said application this Court has discussed with regarding to Limitation and Court fee points are concerned. It has been discussed in para no.10 and 11 of the orders passed on IA no.6 that the suit is not barred by Limitation and also the plaintiffs have failed the proper Court fee on the plaint as such this suit is maintainable. Now with this application defendant no.1 to 4 prays to frame the additional issues with regarding to Limitation and Court fee point is concerned. This Court has already given findings in these aspects while deciding the IA for rejection of plaint as such framing of the separate issues on Limitation and Court fee point is redundant, as such this Court opines that defendant no.1 to 4 have not made out grounds to consider the IA and grant the relief as sought for through this IA with regarding to framing of additional issues pertaining to Limitation and Court fee points are concerned. 16. Counsel for the defendant no.1 to 4 in support of their arguments relied on the decisions reported in Anneppa Channappa Shetkar and Another v. Bandevva (deceased by L. Rs.) and others AIR 2004 KARNATAKA 276, M.S. Ananda Kumar v, Jayamma(2015) 4 AirKarR 85 and Kotha Sailaja Sri. Thandu Yadagiri and 6 others. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 17. Perused the decisions which relied by the Counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 4 in support of their arguments. 18. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon’ble Andhrapradesh in those decisions are not helpful to the case putforth by the defendant no.1 to 4 with regarding to framing of additional issues since their facts which mentioned in those issues are not similar to the facts of this case. 19. Defendant no. 1 to 4 have not made out grounds to consider the IA in order to frame the additional issues as mentioned in the IA as such they are not entitled for the relief as sought by them in this IA. With all these discussions this Court proceeds to answer Point No. 1 in the Negative. 20. Point No.2: For the reasons as discussed in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R IA No.IX filed by the Defendant No.1 to 4 under Order 14 Rule 5 R/w Sec. 151 of CPC is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.” 5. A perusal of the impugned order and the material on record will indicate that the Trial Court committed an error in failing to appreciate that the proposed additional issues arose out of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 pleadings of the parties, in particular, the defence put-forth by the petitioners in the written statement. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the Trial Court fell in error in rejecting the application without appreciating that the proposed additional issues arise from the pleadings of the parties thereby warranting framing of the said additional issues for the purpose of adjudication of the suit, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.37/2017 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A.No.7 filed by the defendants is hereby allowed. (iv) The Trial Court is directed to frame the following additional issues: “1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is deficit?” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5140 WP No. 37063 of 2025 (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the plaintiffs to put-forth all contentions on all issues including additional issues. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55