Karnataka High Court
Sri. U.K.Subramanya Bhat vs Smt. K.Shobha on 10 January, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.4810/2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI U.K.SUBRAMANYA BHAT
S/O LATE U GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/AT MADDUPALU HOUSE
KOTEKAR VILLAGE & POST
P.O. KOTEKAR-575022
MANGALURU TALUK (DK).
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M SUDHAKAR PAI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. K SHOBHA
W/O LATE VASANTH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. MR. SHRIKANTH S.V.
S/O LATE VASANTH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT "SUMUKHA"
NEAR THIRUVAIL SCHOOL
P.O.VAMANJOOR-575028
MANGALURU TALUK (DK).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUMA K, ADV. R1 & R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 13.02.2020 ON I.A.NO.V IN O.S.NO.348/2019 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, DK VIDE
ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF
REFUSING TO FRAME ADDITIONAL ISSUES (3) AND (4) THEREIN.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by a portion of the order
passed on I.A.No.V dated 13.02.2020 passed in
O.S.No.348/2019 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru
filed this writ petition.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ
petition are as under:
The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.348/2019
seeking for relief of mandatory injunction against the
petitioner herein. The petitioner filed written statement
contending that the respondents have not properly valued the
suit and the Court fee paid is insufficient. The trial Court
framed issues. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application
I.A.No.V seeking to frame four additional issues. The
respondent filed objections to I.A.No.V. The trial Court vide
order dated 13.02.2020 allowed I.A.No.V and framed two
additional issues No.1 and 2 and declined to frame additional
issues 3 and 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order
declining to frame additional issue No.4 filed this writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with
respect to Court fee, the trial Court has recorded a finding
that the Court fee paid by the respondent is correct. He
further submits that the Court has given the said finding
without framing an issue on the Court fee. Hence, on this
ground, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
supports the impugned order.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
6. The Respondents filed the suit for mandatory injunction
against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement
wherein the petitioner had denied the title of the respondents
over the suit schedule property. The trial Court framed
issues. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for
framing of additional issues. The trial Court allowed the
application for framing of additional issues and framed only
two additional issues and declined to frame additional issues
No.3 and 4.
7. Insofar as additional issue No.4 is concerned, the trial
Court recorded a finding that Court fee paid by the
respondents herein is proper. The trial Court without framing
an issue with regard to Court fee has observed that the Court
fee paid by the respondent is proper. The procedure adopted
by the trial Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 is without framing
issue regarding court fee is perverse. Hence, on this ground
alone, the impugned order insofar as paragraphs 11 and 12 is
liable to be set aside.
8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is
allowed. The trial Court is directed to frame additional issue
No.4 and thereafter record evidence and pass appropriate
judgment in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.Nos.3 and 4
of 2021 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they
are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mpk/-*
CT:bms
