The court reiterated that additional issues cannot be framed after prolonged delays in proceedings without demonstrating necessity for a complete resolution.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - defendant No.1 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur, on an interlocutory application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, in O.S.No.604/2027, seeking additional issue to be framed, stands rejected.

2. Heard Sri Ravikumara B.R., learned counsel for petitioner. Notice to the respondents is not ordered.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The respondents - plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.604/2007 for declaration and permanent injunction. Written statement is filed by the petitioner – defendant No.1 on 26.05.2009; the issues are framed by the concerned Court on 03.08.2010; examination of the witnesses happen and after 15 years of the framing of charges, defendant No.1 files the interlocutory application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC seeking to frame additional issue. The concerned Court holding that the additional issue so sought is superfluous as issues have already been framed, which covers the issue that defendant No.1 has sought to reframe the issues, rejects the application. The rejection of the application has driven the petitioner – defendant No.1 to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged in the application to contend that the distinct issue is sought as an additional issue to be framed and the concerned Court has rejected the application. He would contend that the framing of the said additional issue is necessary for complete resolution of the issue in the suit. He would seek to allow the application.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The dates and events in the lis would begin from the year 2007. The suit is of the year 2007, written statement is filed on 26.05.2009; the issues are framed by the concerned Court on 03.08.2010; 15 years have passed by and when the trial Court is at the fag end, the application comes to be filed by defendant No.1 under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC seeking framing of additional issue.

7. The issues framed by the concerned Court read as follows:

“ISSUES:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that he is the absolute owner of Suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dtd:22/4/1976 and he is in possession of the same as on the date of filing of suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the alleged interference by the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration and Permanent Injunction?

4. Whether the Court Fee paid is proper?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought in the plaint?

6. What order or decree?”

(Emphasis added)

The proposed additional issue sought to be framed by the petitioner reads as follows:

Additional Issue to be framed "Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiff has not paid the court fee on the market value of the suit schedule property and the court fee paid in the improper and the relief is undervalued. The valuation made for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is improper and this Hon'ble court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this suit as pleaded in para-No.5 of the written statement as contended?

(Emphasis added)

The concerned Court rejects the application by the following reasons:

“…. … ….

5. On perusal of the pleadings, it is more evident that the plaintiff has filled the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and Permanent Injunction. On perusal of the entire material, it is the 2011 matter, the matter is posted for further cross examination of