Karnataka High Court
WP/28417/2023 of SHATRUNJAYA ARIGA Vs SRI. DEEPAK SHENOY MAROLI on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010657252023 NC: 2026:KHC:47869 WP No. 28417 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A . PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 28417 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHATRUNJAYA ARIGA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 28417 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHATRUNJAYA ARIGA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O SUKEERTHI ARIGA,
R/O BANARI GARDEN,
BELANDOOR VILLAGE,
KAIMANA POST,
KADABA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 202
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VARUN SAI Y., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. DEEPAK SHENOY MAROLI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O VITTALSHENOY,
R/O POORNADEEPA,
HITTIYADKA,
KUDMAR VILLGE,
KADABA TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 202.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
ANNAPURNA G
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 03/11/2021 ON IA NO. 5 IN OS NO. 24 OF 2021
ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
PUTTUR AS PER ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A.
NO. 5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR IN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.24/2021 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short).
2. Heard Sri Varun Sai Y., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sachin B. S., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for the respondent.
HC-KAR
3. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.24/2021 seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 26.02.2020. In the said suit, the trial Court framed the issues. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.5 under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking to frame additional issues. The proposed additional issues read as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant had delivered possession of ‘A’ schedule property to him under/in pursuance of sale agreement dt:26.02.2020?
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Mr.Sathwik Ariga?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he got levelled the plaint ‘A’ schedule property or constructed road or planted areca plants by spending Rs.5,00,000/- as contended by him in para No.4 of his plaint?
4. Additional issue No.1 is with regard to delivery of possession of the ‘A’ schedule property by the defendant to the plaintiff. The suit being one for specific performance, there is no dispute with regard to delivery of possession. Hence, the said issue is not required to be framed.
HC-KAR
5. Insofar as additional issue No.2 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said issue is not pressed, as the issues already framed cover the said issue.
6. Insofar as additional issue No.3 is concerned, the defendant seeks to frame an issue as to whether the plaintiff proves that he got the plaint ‘A’ schedule property levelled or constructed a road or planted 400 areca plants by spending Rs.5,00,000/-, as contended by him in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. In my considered view, the said issue is also unnecessary, as the plaintiff has not sought any relief in the plaint with regard to the improvements made in the suit schedule property. In the absence of any prayer in the suit, the said issue is also not required to be framed.
7. The trial Court, having considered the same, has rightly rejected the application vide order dated 03.11.2023, and the same does not call for any interference.
HC-KAR
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44