Karnataka High Court
Sri.I.P.Arun Kumar vs Sri.K.K.Anand on 2 June, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.3101 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI I.P. ARUN KUMAR
S/O. LATE PONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT INAKANAHALLI
THOLLURUSETTAHALLI GRAM AND POST
SOMARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASAD K.R. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI K.K. ANAND
S/O. LATE K.P. KUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
KOOTI GRAMA SHANTALLI HOBLI
SOMARPETE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANDESH P. NADIGER, ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 2-2-2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL/ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), SOMWARPET, IN O.S. NO.63 OF 2009
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 2-2-2021 in
O.S. No.63 of 2009 passed by the Principal/Additional Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.) Somwarpet, has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as
under:
The respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.63 of 2009 for
relief of specific performance of contract. The petitioner
appeared and filed written statement. The respondent filed
an application for amendment to the plaint. The Trial Court
by order dated 3-1-2015 rejected the application. The
respondent aggrieved by the said order filed Writ Petition
No.13136 of 2015. This Court by order dated 9-3-2020
permitted the respondent to carryout necessary amendments
in the plaint. Accordingly, the respondent carried out the
amendment in the plaint. The petitioner filed additional
written statement, wherein the trial Court has refused to
frame additional issues. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent filed an application for amendment to the plaint
and the said application came to be allowed by this Court and
the respondent has incorporated the amendment at Para
No.4(a) in the plaint. The petitioner filed additional written
statement. In the additional written statement, the petitioner
has denied the contents of Para No.4(a) of the plaint. He
further submits that the trial Court ought to have framed
additional issues on the amended portion. On the contrary,
the trial Court has declined to frame additional issues.
Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary and
erroneous and hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the
impugned order and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent filed a suit in
O.S. No.63 of 2009 for relief of specific performance of
contract. The petitioner filed written statement. Thereafter,
the respondent filed application for amendment to the plaint
and the said application came to be rejected by the trial
Court. The respondent aggrieved by the order of rejection of
an application for amendment to the plaint preferred Writ
Petition No.13136 of 2015. This Court by order dated
9-3-2020 allowed the writ petition and also the application
filed by the respondent and permitted the respondent to
carryout the amendment in the plaint. The petitioner filed
additional written statement denying the averments made at
Para 4(a) of the plaint. The trial Court ought to have framed
issues as per Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Perusal of Order XIV Rule 1 indicates that whenever
there is proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and
denied by the other, all the issues raised by the Court are to
be answered in the judgment passed. In terms of Order XIV
Rule 5, the Court may at any time before passing a decree
amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as
it thinks fit. The trial Court without considering the said
aspect has proceeded to pass the impugned order and
additional issues are required to be framed. Hence, the order
is liable to be set aside.
With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 2-2-2021 in O.S. No.63 of 2009
passed by the Principal/Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.)
Somwarpet, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to frame
additional issues with regard to the amended portion.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kvk
