IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 55970 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
EDEN HALL APARTMENTS CONDOMINIUM, AN ASSOCITATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT, 1972 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.245, 80 FEET ROAD, DEFENCE COLONY, DIVISION NO. 67, BANGALORE – 560 038. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED. REPRESENTATIVE MR. R S VIDYASHANKAR.
(BY SMT. RANJANA IYER, ADVOCATE) AND:
M RAMASUBRAMANIAM, S/O M.S.VENKATESWARAN, RESIDING AT NO. 102, EDEN HALL, NO. 245, 80 FEET ROAD, DEFENCE COLONY, DIVISION NO.67, BANGALORE – 560 038.
(BY SRI. K SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.10.2018 IN O.S. NO. 26140/2015 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT MAYO HAL VIDE ANNEXURE-A REJECTING THE PETITIONER- PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 R/W SEC 15 OF THE CPC SEEKIG THE FRAMING OF AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE FOR TRIAL COURT AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner –Association being the plaintiff in a money suit in O.S. No. 26140/2015 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 03.10.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned 57th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has rejected its application filed under XIV Rule 5 of CPC, 1908, for framing of an additional issue.
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 Bsv