IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 51430 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
DR. C KIRAN, S/O CHANDRASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND DOCTOR, RESIDING AT 43RD CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. A V NISHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. S VENKATESH, S/O HUCHCHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT VIGNESHWARA NILAYA, KAVALUGUNDI, BHADRAVATHI – 577 301.
2. SMT. SAROJAMMA, W/O KITTI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI-577 451.
3. SRI. K B GANGADHAR, S/O LATE BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KAVALUGUNDI, BHADRAVATHI – 577 451.
4. SRI. B R JAYANNA, S/O LATE PARAMESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KAVALUGUNDI, BHADRAVATHI – 577 451.
5. SMT. LEELAVATHI, W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT NAVILEBASAPURA, BHADRAVATHI – 577 451.
6. SRI. GAJENDRA SINGH, S/O VENKATESH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KAVALUGUNDI, BHADRAVATHI – 577 451.
7. SRI. MAHADEV, S/O DUMMALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KAVALUGUNDI, BHADRAVATHI – 577 451.
8. SRI. SOMU, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KADADAKATTE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI – 577 229.
9. SRI. MARILINGE GOWDA, S/O JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RUBBER KADU, BHADRAVATHI – 577 302.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S N BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 6, R8 & 9; VIDE ORDER 24.11.2015 COPY SERVED SRI. A B NANJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & 9 BEFORE TRIAL COURT;
NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.94/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI VIDE ANN-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINMARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner/plaintiff in bare injunction suit in O.S.No.94/2015 is invoking writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dated 13.08.2015 made by the learned I Addl. Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, allowing defendants I.A.No.4, whereby petitioner is directed to amend or add the relief of declaration to the prayer column in the plaint and further to deposit Court Fee on the said relief. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the Writ Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit is one for a decree of bare injunction founded on the documents of title and other evidentiary material; true it is that the defendant No.9/respondent No.9 herein, having filed his Written Statement, has denied petitioner’s title. That per se cannot be a ground for the trial court to compel the petitioner/plaintiff to amend his pleadings by introducing a prayer for declaration of title and further, to pay the Court Fee by valuing the suit accordingly. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents makes submission in justification of the impugned order inter alia contending that although ordinarily, it is for the dominant litis like the plaintiff to frame his suit in a way he wants, there may be circumstances like the one in this case where trial court has discretion to direct amendment of the pleadings of the parties for the final and complete adjudication of the lis.
respondents and I have perused the Petition Papers.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ordinarily, it is for the dominant litis to frame his pleadings and court subject to all just exceptions, cannot direct him to add an additional relief by way of substantive prayer and thereby, direct him to pay a very high Court Fee, has force, no contra provision of law or a Ruling having been cited by the opposing side. There may be very special circumstances where the trial court may direct the parties to amend their pleadings or call them to file additional pleadings. But this is not one such case where the trial court could have directed the plaintiff to convert the bare injunction suit into the one for declaration of title and further to pay the Court Fee on such valuation. Ordinarily, it is for the plaintiff to decide how his suit should be framed.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/