IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 55343 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI V JAYARAMA REDDY, S/O LATE SRI VEMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDABANASWADI VILLAGE AND POST, BENGALURU-560043.
(DEFENDANT-1 IN OS NO.5689 OF 2015) (BY SRI. PAPI REDDY G, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI SANDEEP GANGADHAR, S/O SRI D N GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.920, I-F MAIN ROAD, SECND PHASE, GIRINAGAR , BENGALURU-560085.
(PLAINTIFF IN OS NO.5689 OF 2015) 2. SRI MANJUNATH K, S/O SRI S M KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT SARAKKI VILLAGE, UTTARAHLLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
(DEFENDANT-2 IN OS NO.5689 OF 2015) 3. SRI S M KRISHNA REDDY, MAJOR BY AGE S/O LATE SRI DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY, RESIDING AT SARAKKI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. (DEFENDANT-3 IN OS NO.5689 OF 2015) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K B NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I- ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.NO.2) ON IA-III IN O.S.NO.5689 OF 2015 VIDE ANNEXURE –F AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner being the defendant in a partition suit in OS.No.5689/2015 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 20.10.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F whereby his application in IA No.3 filed under Order XIX Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 having been rejected, the Court below has refused to frame additional issue and recast some issues which have already been framed. After service of notice, first respondent having entered appearance through his counsel opposes the writ petition, notice to all other respondents having been dispensed with vide order dated 12.03.2019.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the grievance of the petitioner to the extent that the Court below refused to frame the issue as to the identity of the subject property is falterable. The framing of the additional issue as to the identity of the subject property is eminently needed in this case regard being had to the battle lines have been drawn by filing the pleadings.
3. No prejudice would be caused to the other side if an additional issue as sought for now is framed; on the other hand, the framing of such an additional issue would facilitate due adjudication of the lis, comprehensively.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned order is modified to the effect that the Court below shall frame additional issue as to the identity and extent of the subject property and permit the parties to lead evidence thereon.
All other contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv