IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.1808/2019 (GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
SHREE SHARADA VIDYA MANDIRA EDUCATION SOCIETY (R), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY , B.R.HARIDAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O No.100, LAGGERE, PEENYA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560058 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI, ADV.] AND:
SHREE LAKSHMIDEVINAGAR RAJARATHNAM EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY S.N.MANJULAMMA W/O K.KEMPANNA @ K.SHIVAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, No.145, C/O K.SHIVAPRASAD L.DEVINAGIRI, BANGALORE – 560086 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.6729/2002 REJECTING THE IA FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XIV R5 R/W SECTION 151 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.12.2018 passed on I.A. filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6729/2002 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the said application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been rejected.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.6792/2002 seeking for declaration and injunction against the defendants.. In the said suit proceedings, I.A. under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been filed seeking for framing of additional issues which has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issues framed on 04.03.2014 are not suffice to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties. Unless the issues are framed, the Court is not obligated to give any finding. Though the evidence is concluded, the parties would not be required to adduce further evidence in pursuant to the additional issues, if sought for, by the petitioner is permitted to be framed, is not considered while taking a decision by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he seeks for setting aside the order impugned.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the suit has been filed in the year 2002 and the issues are framed on 04.03.2014 as under:-
issues framed as aforesaid cannot be held to be not sufficient. It is the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the additional issues now sought for to be framed are already covered by the evidence lead in by the parties and there is no necessary for the parties to adduce further evidence. If such being the position, then there is absolutely no necessity for reframing the issues. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the evidence lead on the original issues filed by the petitioner would not be considered unless additional issues are framed. Merely on such apprehension, no additional issues can be framed, more particularly when the matter is listed for final arguments. At the fag-end of the suit proceedings, even if the additional issues are framed, though the petitioners submits that the further evidence is not required, the Court is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the CPC. Finally, it would result in procrastination of the matter. Hence, on these grounds, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel cannot be countenanced. No jurisdictional error found in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR