Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.594/2005 on the file of the 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order dated 24012015 partly allowing I.A.No.13 filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking for framing of additional issue, has filed this writ petition.

2. The first respondent herein filed a suit seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22-11-2011 executed by the first defendant. The first defendant filed written statement. In the written statement the first defendant has stated that since the plaintiff had failed to perform her part of the contract, the suit schedule property was sold in favour of the second defendant as per the registered sale deed dated 06-10-2004. In view of that the plaintiff filed an application to imp-lead the second defendant and also sought for amendment of the plaint. The application for imp-leading the second defendant was allowed on 26-12-2005, thereafter the plaint was amended and the prayer was also made seeking for declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 06-10-2004 is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff further sought for cancellation of the said sale deed. The second defendant entered appearance and filed written statement.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. The parties went for trial. The plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents. The first defendant was not examined. However, the second defendant was examined through her Power of Attorney holder. In support of her case, she examined the brother of the first defendant as D.W.2. When the case was posted for arguments, the second defendant in the suit filed an application I.A.No.13 seeking for framing of additional issue contending that she is the bonafide purchaser and she is not aware of the agreement of sale dated 22-11-2001 as per Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The Trial Court has not framed any issue regarding bonafide purchase. Hence, she sought for framing of additional issue in the following manner:

“Whether the plaintiff proves that the second defendant was aware about the existence of contract between her and the first defendant and that the sale deed of the second defendant is not binding on her contrary to Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act.”

4. The said application and also the draft additional issue framed by the second defendant was opposed by the plaintiff contending that burden is to be shifted on the second defendant to prove that she has purchased the property in good faith and without notice of the subsistence of agreement of sale dated 22-11-2001. Under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, the person claims to be the bonafide purchaser has to prove his case that he has purchased the property without canceling the agreement of sale in good faith and without notice of the original contract. Hence casting burden on the plaintiff to prove that second defendant is aware of the existence of the contract does not arise. In the plaint, the specific allegation has been made against the second defendant that she, in collusion with the first defendant, during the subsistence of earlier agreement of sale, purchased the property for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/whereas the agreement of sale is for Rs.9,00,000/. Hence, the burden cannot be cast upon the plaintiff to prove that the second defendant is the bonafide purchaser.

5. The Trial Court after considering the matter in detail and taking into consideration the arguments addressed by the parties found that though the second defendant filed an application for framing of the additional issue with regard to bonafide purchase of the property by her during the subsistence of agreement of sale, she examined one of the witnesses in support of her who is none other than the brother of first defendant. In his evidence he has stated that he has informed the second defendant about the existence