Specific pleas on limitation and court-fee sufficiency require corresponding issues for adjudication.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession.

Defendant No. 18, the petitioner, sought additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), relying on pleas of res judicata, limitation, and insufficiency of court fee in his written statement.

The Trial Court rejected the application on 16 December 2019.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court noted that the written statement referred to earlier proceedings in support of res judicata, challenged the plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief concerning certain deeds as time-barred, and disputed their possession and the sufficiency of court fee

1. Whether the pleadings provided a sufficient foundation to frame an additional issue on res judicata

2. Whether the specific plea that the challenge to the deeds was barred by limitation required an additional issue

3. Whether the plea that the plaintiffs were not in possession, and that the court fee was insufficient, required an additional issue

Under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the court may frame additional issues where the pleadings disclose material questions requiring adjudication.

A plea of res judicata under Section 11 CPC requires foundational pleadings sufficient to identify the prior proceedings, the parties and matters directly and substantially in issue, the adjudication, and how it bars the later suit.

A specific plea that declaratory relief is time-barred raises a question for adjudication; where limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact, an issue should be framed.

A pleaded dispute over possession and court fee may also require an issue.

However, a court-fee issue in a suit pending before the Bengaluru City Civil Court is not to be treated as a preliminary issue, having regard to the Full Bench decision in Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosamani and Others, ILR 2018 KAR 5095

The references to earlier suits and miscellaneous proceedings did not state the matters adjudicated, the relevant parties, or how those decisions barred the present suit; the Court therefore found no adequate basis to frame a res judicata issue.

By contrast, the written statement specifically challenged the plaintiffs’ claims concerning identified deeds as barred by limitation.

Because the Trial Court itself recognised limitation as a mixed question of law and fact, it should have framed an issue to enable adjudication of that plea.

The pleaded challenge to the plaintiffs’ possession and the resulting objection to court fee likewise warranted an issue, but not treatment as a preliminary issue.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order insofar as it rejected the request for issues on limitation and sufficiency of court fee, and directed the Trial Court to frame appropriate issues on those matters and proceed in accordance with law.

The court-fee issue was not to be treated as a preliminary issue.

No issue on res judicata was directed in the absence of the necessary pleadings, and the parties’ other contentions were left open.