Plaintiffs challenged a trial court order that framed only one of two proposed additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5(1) CPC in a suit for declaration and possession. The High Court held a defence contention alone does not throw up an issue and dismissed the writ petition.
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:44872 WP No. 1578 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1578 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ABDUL AZEEZ SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
PETITIONER NO.6 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 128.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY K.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. SYED BABU S/O. LATE SYED GAFAR SABI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SANTHEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
NC: 2024:KHC:44872 WP No. 1578 of 2024
KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 128.
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.10.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI IN OS NO.188/2014 AND THEREBY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS BEING IA NO.12, THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.188/2014 pending trial before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this petition challenging an order dated 07.10.2023 by which, application (I.A.No.XII) filed by them under Order XIV Rule 5(1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') was allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:44872 WP No. 1578 of 2024
were the plaintiffs while the respondent was the defendant before the Trial Court.
"5. The allegations of the plaintiff in para-4(D) of the amended plaint that the defendant started to interfering with the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff has constructed two godowns in the schedule properties to store the quarrying equipments and machineries, iron bars, barrels, tyres and other scrap items, the plaintiff has constructed one godown situated in 0-36 guntas of Sy.No.32/3 through the registered sale deed, dated:2704-1992, the said godown clearly depicted in the photographs produced in O.S.No.127/2005, another godown situated in 0-35 guntas of Sy.No.32/3 which is purchased through the registered sale deed, dated:2708-1992 from Syed Zabiulla, the existence of said godown clearly depicts in the photographs produced in O.S.No.127/2005, it clearly shows that the plaintiff was carrying quarry business, the defendant taking undue
NC: 2024:KHC:44872 WP No. 1578 of 2024
advantage that the plaintiff has suffered an order of temporary injunction has dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit schedule property during the pendency of above suit and illegally occupied the said godown shown as Ex.28(D) photographs and further constructed as shown in the new photographs, thereby extended the existing structure for residential purpose, the said godown further extended approximately measuring east-west 32 feet and north-south 35 feet, the defendant also illegally occupied approximately 0-09 guntas of property towards eastern portion of the said godown property, the defendant has been in illegal occupation of 0-11 guntas as shown in "B" schedule property, the plaintiff lodged police complaint, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of physical possession of "B" schedule property from the defendant etc., are herby denied as absolutely false and baseless. The defendant humbly submit that he has narrated the construction of the house by his father for residential purpose in his previous written statement and living in the same from the date of construction to up to date. Even the alleged transaction in respect of schedule property are fraudulent, fictitious and no valid rights or title and possession acquired by the plaintiff under the alleged sale deed and the plaintiff is a utter stranger to the plaint schedule properties."
NC: 2024:KHC:44872 WP No. 1578 of 2024
under Order XIV Rule 5(1) read with Section 151 of CPC to frame the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for recovery of vacant physical possession of suit schedule 'B' property?
2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiffs have no valid rights, title and possession over the suit schedule properties as contended in Para No.5 of the additional written statement?
who contended that the plaintiffs are in the habit of filing applications one after the other and not allowing the suit to proceed. He contended that the Trial Court can frame additional issues even at the time of passing the judgment.
other additional issue suggested is concerned, the Trial Court felt that it arose out of defence raised by the defendant. It held that the defendant was bound to prove his defence and therefore, that issue did not arise for consideration.
before this Court in this writ petition.
were entitled to an order of injunction. If the defendant had raised some defence in the additional written statement, that in itself would not throw up an issue. The Court will have to weigh the evidence adduced before it to return a finding whether the plaintiffs have established the issues or not. The Trial Court has rightly held that the additional issue No.1 suggested by the plaintiffs was a material issue, while additional issue No.2 suggested by the plaintiffs was not material to consider the suit on merits. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant interference.
dismissed .
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an additional issue must be framed on a defence contention in the defendant's additional written statement placing the burden on the defendant.
Whether the Trial Court's order partly allowing the plaintiffs' application under Order XIV Rule 5(1) CPC warranted interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Makbul Jan (and other LRs of late Abdul Azeez)
Sri. Syed Babu
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
