AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
28 paragraphs · 761 wordsM. Nagaprasanna, J
Petitioners are before this court calling in question an order dated 10-02-2021, by which the application I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC seeking incorporation of additional issues comes to be dismissed.
The petitioners/defendants and the respondents/plaintiffs are the members of the family and are before the concerned court in OS No. 25235 of 2017 seeking relief of partition. The issue in the lis does not relate to the merit of the claim or the defence before the concerned court. Before the concerned Court, in the aforesaid suit, an application comes to be filed by the petitioners under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC seeking to incorporate additional issues to be tried along with the other issues. The said order comes to be rejected, the rejection of which has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
The learned counsel for the respondents has remained continuously absent. The co-ordinate bench of this Court, on 06-06-2025 had passed the following order:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the proceedings before the Trial Court are stayed, they are unable to make use of the property in view of the injunction order operating against them in the pending suit. It is further submitted that though the respondents are served, they are not appearing in these proceedings. The said submission is placed on record.
As a final chance, two weeks' time is granted for their appearance. It is made clear that if the respondents do not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be heard on merits.
List on 27.06.2025.”
As a last chance, the matter was directed to be listed today. In the event of non-appearance of the respondents, the matter would be heard and decided on its merit is what was indicated in the aforesaid order. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioners is heard.
The issue at this juncture lies in a narrow compass, as to whether, the order of the concerned Court rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC bears application of mind? It is therefore necessary to notice the order itself. The order reads as follows:
“Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 present.
Amendment carried out. Prays time to file amended plaint.
Heard on I.A.No.4, u/O. 14 R 5 R/w. S. 151 of CPC.
The Defendant No.3 prays to frame the Addl. Issues as;
Whether suit is barred u/S. 11 and Or. II R 2 of CPC, Whether suit is barred by limitation, Whether Court fee paid by the Plaintiff is proper.
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for Partition.
This Court framed issue on 03.04.2019 itself. On looking into the facts and documents, I did not find any additional issues as stated by the Defendant No.3 since there is no merits in the application, I proceed to pass the following:
Order
I.A. No.4 filed by Defendant No.3, u/O. 14 R 5 of CPC is dismissed.
Posted for Plaintiff evidence, by 05.03.2021”
A perusal at the order would not indicate even a semblance of application of mind. Reasons are indicated in the application so filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC as to why the additional issues were imperative. Nothing of that is even indicated to be considered in the order. The order is as vague as vagueness could be and does not inspire a semblance of confidence.
In that light, finding the order cryptic and laconic, I deem it appropriate to set aside the same and remit the matter back to the concerned court to consider the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC afresh and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order impugned dated 10-02-2021 passed by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dismissing I.A.No.4 filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC stands quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
(iv) Any other contention to be urged shall remain open.
(v) Since the order is of the year 2021, and is now being remitted back, the concerned Court shall pass necessary orders within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier.