IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.28906 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
ANJENEYA S/O.LATE MARIKAL MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT SHANTA TALKIES ROAD HONNALI TOWN, HONNALI TALUK.
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001 … PETITIONER (BY SRI S.B.HALLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT.SHANTAMMA W/O.LATE H.M.PUTTAMALLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
1. H.M.PURUSHOTHAM S/O.LATE H.M.PUTTAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT MAG-38, APPUVASA NILAYA VINOBA NAGAR, KALLAHALLI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201 2. H.M.CHANDRAKUMAR S/O.LATE H.M.PUTTAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT 4TH CROSS DURGIGUDI EXTENSION NORTHERN SIDE, HONNALI TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001 3. H.M.JAYAMMA W/O.DR.RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT BEHIND HALADAMMA DEVI SCHOOL, NYAMATHI ROAD HONNALI TOWN, HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001 4. SMT.VASANTAMMA W/O.H.M.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS C/O.DODDAMANE JAYANNA R/AT TANIGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001 5. SMT.SAROJAMMA K. W/O.HANUMANTHAPPA K.S. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.1962/45 VINAYAKA BADAVANE SHABANOOR-8 DAVANAGERE CITY DAVANAGERE-577 001 … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2019 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALLI IN OS.NO.84/2010 ON IA.NO.15 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the plaintiff No. 1(H) in a declaratory suit in O.S.No.84/2010 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 26.02.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge, Honnalli, has rejected his application in Ia No.15 filed under XIV Rule 5 of CPC, 1908, for framing of an additional issue as under:
“ Whether the defendants prove that, the sale deed dated 04.07.1977 and sale deed dated 01.01.1979 are genuine documents, as those documents are executed by its rightful owner in respect of A and B schedule properties?”
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the writ petition papers, this Court declines to interfere in the matter because the grievance of a party to the suit as to the framing, non- framing, recasting or deletion of issues, can be the subject matter of consideration by the Appellate Court, if and when such a litigant suffers an adverse judgment & decree at the hands of the trial Court, as provided under section 105 read with Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908. Ordinarily, such orders are not scrutinized by the writ court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, of course subject to all just exceptions into which the case of the petitioner does not fit. This is the consistent view of this Court in more or less similar matters.
3. However, it is open to the petitioner to make the impugned order a ground for challenging an adverse decree if and when made, as provided under Section 105 read with Order XLIII Rule 1A of CPC, 1908.
It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the learned trial judge framing or modifying any issues/additional issues, if the need arises.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition stands disposed off without granting indulgence.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY