Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5493
WP No. 101437 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 101437 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. NINGAPPA PAYAPPA ASHTAGI
S/O PAYAPPA ASHTAGI, AGE. 68 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. UPPINA BETIGERI,
DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD 581206
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R H ANGADI, ADV)
AND:
1. SRI RAVINDRA V. HAMPIHOLI
S/O LATE VENKATESH H HAMPIHOLI
AGED 74 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
2. SANDHYA @ SNEHA ]
D/O LATE VENKATESH H. HAMPIHOLI
W/O VYASMUNI DESHPANDE
AGED 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R1 & R2 ARE R/AT. #RM-103, A WING,
FLAT NO. 101, SNEHA VAIBHAV,
CHS, MIDC, DOMBIVILLI EAST,
THANE -421202, MAHARASHTRA.
3. RAJU R REDDY
S/O LATE PRABHAKAR REDDY
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
4. DINESH R REDDY
S/O LATE PRABHAKAR REDDY
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
5. ARUN R REDDY
S/O LATE PRABHAKAR REDDY
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5493
WP No. 101437 of 2024
HC-KAR
R3 TO R5 ARE R/AT. REDDY BUILDING,
KOPPA TANK, MAHSTM BASAVESWARANAGAR,
DHARWAD - 580001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADV FOR R1 & R2,
NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, THIS HON’BLE COURT BE
PLEASED TO KINDLY QUASH OR ISSUE AN ORDER IN NATURE OF
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
14/02/2024 IN O.S.NO.125/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, DHARWAD, ORDER ON APPLICATION
FILED UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC VIDE
ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED
UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC DATED. 31/1/2024
VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging
the order dated 14.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.125 of 2016 by the
learned Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Dharwad.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5493
WP No. 101437 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. The original plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.125 of
2016 seeking delivery of the mortgaged property, discharge of
mortgage, and possession. The petitioner/defendant No.4 filed a
written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The
matter was set down for the plaintiff’s evidence, and the plaintiff
led evidence and closed his side. Thereafter, the matter was
posted for the evidence of the petitioner/defendant No.4, who
also led evidence.
4. When the matter was posted for further evidence of
defendant No.4, the petitioner filed an application under Order
XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) seeking the framing of
additional issues regarding the jurisdiction and Court fee. The
said application was opposed by the respondents herein, who are
the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.
5. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated
14.02.2024. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order at
Annexure-E, the petitioner/ defendant No.4 has filed this writ
petition.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5493
WP No. 101437 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for
framing additional issues. He submits that, as per Order XIV Rule
5 of the CPC, an application for framing additional issues can be
filed at any stage of the proceedings. He further submits that the
trial Court has rejected the application solely on the ground that
it was filed at a belated stage. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs submits that the petitioner has filed the
application for framing additional issues at a belated stage, when
the matter was posted for arguments, only with an intention to
protract the proceedings. It is further submitted that the trial
Court has rightly rejected the application by passing the
impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss
the writ petition.
9. Perused the records, and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5493
WP No. 101437 of 2024
HC-KAR
10. It is an undisputed fact that the original plaintiff filed
a suit for delivery of the mortgaged property and other
consequential reliefs in O.S.No.125/2016. The petitioner
appeared and filed a written statement. The plaintiff was
examined as PW-1, and closed his side, and the matter was
thereafter posted for the defendant’s evidence.
11. At that stage, when the matter was posted for
further evidence of the defendant No.4, the petitioner/defendant
No.4 filed an application seeking framing of additional issues. It
is also pertinent to note that after the filing of the written
statement by the petitioner, the respondents/plaintiffs had
submitted draft issues based on the pleadings of both parties on
11.01.2023, and the petitioner did not raise any objections to
the draft issues submitted by the plaintiff.
12. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed the application
seeking framing of additional issues regarding the pecuniary
jurisdiction and payment of court fee when the matter was
posted for further evidence of the defendant No.4.
13. The trial Court, on perusal of Ex.D1, executed by
Prabhakar Reddy in favour of defendant No.4 on 07.07.1995, has
noted that the mortgage amount is ₹40,000/- and that the
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5493
WP No. 101437 of 2024
HC-KAR
valuation and Court fee is to be paid o the deed and not on
market value of the property. As the value of the subject matter
of the suit is less than ₹5,00,000/-, the Civil Judge (Junior
Division) has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
suit. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the
application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC.
14. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order
at Annexure-E. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed
The writ petition is .
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending I.As. if
any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RHR/-CT: BSB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16