S K Manjunath Vs Smt S E Shobha

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE PAP REDDY, W/O GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BANDAPURA VILLAGE, MARASUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 561 212.

¶32

SRI. P. PRASANNA REDDY SON OF LATE PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶33

SRI. K.P. NARAYANA REDDY SON OF LATE PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶34

7 AND 8 RESIDING AT KADA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 561 212.

¶35

SRI. PADMANABHA NAIDU SON OF V. VENKATARAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO 131, 7^TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶36

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. MONNAPPA K.A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2023, NOTICE TO R3 TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28047 WP No. 5697 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO. 587/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE PERUSE THE SAME AND ALLOW THIS WP AND ETC.,

¶42

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.09.2022 passed on I.A. in O.S.No.587/2009 by the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short).

¶46

Sri. Srinivas Manohar Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession with regard to the suit schedule property. The petitioners herein have filed a detailed written statement denying the assertion made in the plaint. It is submitted that, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking the relief of declaration instead of partition which

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28047 WP No. 5697 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

was allowed by the trial Court and was assailed by the petitioners before this Court and this Court upholding the order of the trial Court clearly held that the amendment would be allowed from the date of filing of application and not from the date of filing of suit.

¶50

It is further submitted that, in view of the amendment, additional written statement came to be filed by the petitioners along with an application seeking to frame the additional issues, which was rejected by the trial Court and no issue is framed with regard to whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 27.08.1962 is not executed by Sri. Erappa and whether the defendants prove that the relief sought by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶51

Per contra, Sri. Monappa K.A., learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that trial Court has clearly recorded the finding at para-5 that, insofar as the

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28047 WP No. 5697 of 2023

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

additional issues, already Issue No.5 and 6 are framed and there is no necessity to frame additional issues. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶55

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶56

counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶57

The respondents herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.587/2009 for relief of partition and separate possession with regard to suit schedule property. The petitioners filed detailed written statement to the said plaint denying the assertion made in the plaint. Thereafter, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application seeking to amend the plaint by deleting the prayer of partition and sought insertion of relief of declaration that suit schedule-B property is a property allotted to the share of Erappa as per the Palupatti dated 26.07.1951, direct the defendants No.1 and 2 to put the plaintiffs in exclusive

¶58

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28047 WP No. 5697 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

possession of the suit schedule-B property and declare that the sale deed dated 27.08.1962 is not executed by Sri. Erappa @ Chinnappa.

¶61

The records indicate that the petitioners herein have filed additional written statement after the amendment was allowed. The respondents assailed the order of the trial Court dated 07.03.2020, wherein the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. This Court has upheld the said order in W.P.No.15465/2021 vide order dated 08.11.2021. This Court made certain observation with regard to the aspect of limitation.

¶62

Be that it may, the petitioners herein have filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC seeking prayer to recast the issues framed in the above suit by framing additional issues in view of the amendment. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs and

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28047 WP No. 5697 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

thereafter, under the impugned order, same came to be dismissed.

¶66

It is to be noticed that the trial Court while dismissing the application for recasting the additional issue has made observation that, the defendants have not filed additional written statement, which is factually incorrect as the additional written statement filed by the petitioners/defendants is produced along with the petition. It is to be noticed that the trial Court though framed issues, there is no issue with regard to the non-execution of the sale deed by Sri. Erappa and a specific assertion of the defendants in the additional written statement with regard to the aspect of limitation.

¶67

Hence, in my considered view, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to reconsider the application filed by the petitioners herein by considering the additional written statement filed by them and taking note of the later amendment.

¶68

9 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:28047 WP No. 5697 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, I

¶72

proceed to pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i. The Writ petition is allowed .

¶75

ii. The impugned order dated 04.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.587/2009 on I.A. filed under Order

¶76

XIV Rule 5 of CPC by VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, is set aside.

¶77

iii. The application filed by the petitioners under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC is restored. The trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶78

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2026 would not survive for consideration.

¶79

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶80

MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

S K Manjunath v. Smt S E Shobha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S K Manjunath v. Smt S E Shobha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M N Dharmavratha Vs Sri K L Ramesh

Mr Jagadeesh Vs Mr Lingappa Suvarna

Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. Vs United Breweries Ltd.

Sri. Angadi Chikka Anjinappa @ Chikka Anajinappa Vs Smt. Ammayya @ Anitha

Smt. v. Meenakumari Vs Sri v Prakash

Smt Usha Ramesh Vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.