Defendant in an ejectment and mesne profits suit sought framing of additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC; the trial court rejected the application. The High Court found no prejudice or failure of justice, relying on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, and disposed of the petition without interfering with the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:947 WP No. 101 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
DR. DAVIN KARKADA S/O. DANIEL KARKADA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, DANIEL KARKADA, S/O. LATE PUAL KARKADA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, C/O. HOTELL JEWEL ROCK BAR AND RESTAURANT END POINT ROAD, MANIPAL, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI-576 104.
AND ALSO RESIDING AT CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST, DMHP, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. S. ASHWATHNARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA S A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
. LOMBARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL UDUPI-576 101, A UNIT OF THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, KARNATAKA SOUTHERN DIOCESE, MANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY
NC: 2024:KHC:947 WP No. 101 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE RT. REV. DR. C.D. JATHANNA BERITH, BAMATTA, MANGALORE.
(B) DK AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEENA PRABHAVATHI, AGEDABOUT 63 YEARS W/O. SAMUEL DHANRAJ AMMANNA, R/AT D. NO. 8-136, DHANARAJA, RAYARATHOTA, KADEKAR PO, UDUPI TALUK-576104.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S. RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/12/2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 272/2021 DISMISSING IA NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER DEFENDANT ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. C.J. AND JMFC, UDUPI (ANNEXURE-E).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the defendant in O.S. No.272/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed on I.A. No.3 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi [for short, ‘the trial Court’]. One such application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC
NC: 2024:KHC:947 WP No. 101 of 2024
seeking framing of additional Issues as enumerated in the application was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Rs. 1,83,960/- as claimed in the suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the arrears of rent of Rs. 23,700/- as on 31.01.2021?
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 30,660/- as
NC: 2024:KHC:947 WP No. 101 of 2024
arrears of rent for the months of February and March 2021?
5. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the plaintiff is entitled for the costs of Rs. 5,000/- on legal notice from the defendant ?
6. Whether the plaintiff entitled for mesne profits as claimed by the plaintiff from 01.04.2021 to till the delivery of plaint premises?
7. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the plaintiff had issued the legal demand notice dated 23.02.2021 to the defendant, terminating the tenancy of defendant pertaining to plaint “A” schedule property?
8. Whether the defendant proves that there is a breach of agreement by the plaintiff?
9. What order or decree?"
NC: 2024:KHC:947 WP No. 101 of 2024
application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC seeking framing of additional Issues inter alia contending that certain Issues which arise out of the pleadings of the parties had not been framed which are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute in controversy between the parties. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the proposes Issues are already covered under the existing Issues and the trial Court necessarily have to deal with the same at the time of final disposal especially when both the parties have understood the claims of each other and have adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the petitioner was unnecessarily protracting and dragging on the matter and in the event there are some Issues which have been omitted the same could be discussed along with Issue No.1 since sufficient material was already available on record to decide the case on hand. Under these circumstances, the trial Court proceeded to reject the application by passing
NC: 2024:KHC:947 WP No. 101 of 2024
the impugned order which is assailed in the present petition.
ANOTHER v. CHHABI NATH AND OTHERS’ reported in [2015] 5 SCC 423.
NC: 2024:KHC:947 WP No. 101 of 2024
Issues arise out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court would definitely consider the same at the time of final disposal of the suit. The submission of both sides that they have no further oral or documentary evidence to be adduced on the existing Issues or additional Issue is placed on record.
Sd/JUDGE
AN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's refusal to frame additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC caused prejudice warranting interference under Article 227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and OthersRelied on¶5
[2015] 5 SCC 423 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Davin Karkada
Lombard Memorial Hospital represented by Dr. Sushil Devaprasad Jathanna
Deena Prabhavathi
S.R. Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
