The petitioner, defendant in O.S.No.8983/2014 on

the file of City Civil Judge at Bangalore is before this

Court, aggrieved by order dated 26.08.2023 rejecting I.A.

filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC to frame additional

issues.

2.

Heard

learned

counsel

Sri.S.N.Bhat

for

petitioner/defendant and learned counsel Sri.Gireesha

Kodgi for respondent/plaintiff. Perused the writ petition

papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.N.Bhat would

submit that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is for

ejectment and for arrears of rent. The suit is at the stage

of plaintiff’s evidence. The trial Court based on the

pleadings of the parties, initially on 16.02.2016 framed

five issues. Subsequently, when the petitioner/defendant

- 3 -

filed additional written statement, two additional issues

were framed. The issues framed on 16.02.2016 and

additional issues framed on 12.12.2022 reads as follows:

Issues framed on 16.02.2016:

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves that the

termination of the tenancy of the defendant in

respect of the plaint schedule property is in

accordance with law.?

2.

Whether the plaintiff further proved that

the defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment

of rentals to the plaintiff in respect of the plaint

schedule property and defendant is due rentals

to the plaintiff from January 2012 up to the end

of June 2014 amounting to Rs.4,35,000/- at the

rate of Rs.14,500/- per month?

3.

Whether the plaintiff further proved that

he is entitle for vacant possession of the plaint

schedule property from the defendant after

ejecting the defendant from the plaint schedule

property?

4.

Whether the plaintiff further proved that

he is entitle for mesne profit/ damages from

the defendant at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per

- 4 -

month fro use and occupation of the plaint

schedule property from 01.07.2014 till the date

of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint

schedule property in favour of the plaintiff?

5.

What decree or order?

Additional issues framed on 12.12.2022:

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves that there is

landlord

and

tenant

relationship

between

himself and defendant?

2.

Whether defendant proves that he is

under permissive possession by Sri.Nagaraj?

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner/ defendant filed I.A. under Order XIV Rule 5

of CPC praying to frame additional issues based on the

written statement and additional written statement filed by

the petitioner/defendant. Learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that the suit would not be

maintainable in the absence of suit documents. Therefore,

he prayed for framing of additional issues in that regard.

Further,

learned

counsel

would

submit

that

the

- 5 -

petitioner/defendant in his written statement at paragraph

8 has alleged that there is tampering of plaint by the

plaintiff. When tampering is alleged specifically, it is

submitted that the Court ought to have framed issue in

that regard. Moreover, the petitioner/ defendant has also

prayed for framing of issues on the Will of one Late

Nagaraj in favour of Smt.Kamala. Since, the Court has

failed to take note of the pleadings of the parties while

framing of issues, learned counsel would pray for allowing

I.A. filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC and pray for

framing of issues as prayed in the application.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would

submit that the question of framing additional issues as

prayed in the application would not arise. The suit is one

for ejectment. In that regard, the trial Court has already

framed an issue i.e., whether the plaintiff proves that

there is landlord and tenant relationship between plaintiff

and defendant. The said issue and the issue with regard

to arrears of rent would be sufficient to decide the dispute

- 6 -

between the parties. Learned counsel would submit that

the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings.

Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6.

Having heard the learned counse