IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.49769 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. MOGANNAGOWDA, S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA @ RAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O OPP: THANVI TRISHA KALYANAMANTAPA, VIJAYA SCHOOL ROAD, RING ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT BITTAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK – 573 201.
(BY SRI VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. MANNAMMA, W/O. LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
2. SRI. ANANDA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 3. SRI. NARAYANA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BITTAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK – 573 201.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, DATED 30.08.2019 ON I.A. NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE – F IN O.S.NO.132/2014 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being a defendant in a declaration suit in O.S.No.132/2014 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 30.08.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – F whereby, his application filed under Order XIV Rule 5(2) of CPC, 1908, seeking striking out an issue framed earlier has been rejected.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter since it has been a considered view of this Court that any grievance relating to framing, non-framing, recasting or deleting the issue, ordinarily cannot be a subject matter of adjudication before the Writ Court. No such circumstance as to why this Court should leave the beaten path of law and take a different view is demonstrated.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is rejected in limine. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make the impugned order a ground for challenging the same as provided under Section 105 read with Order XLIII Rule 1A of the amended Code whenever he suffers an adverse judgment & decree by the Court below.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-