IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO. 15491 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI JAGANNATHA

S/O KRISHNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA

W/O JAGANNATHA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

3. SRI RAMESH S/O JAGANNATHA

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

4. SMT. GEREEJA

D/O JAGANNATHA

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

ALLA RE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKORATI

VILLAGE, NANDIGUDI HOBLI

Digitally HOSAKOTE TALUK

signed by

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.

NANDINI M S

…PETITIONERS

Location:

HIGH COU RT

OF (BY SRI JAGANNATHA H.T, ADV.)

KARNATAKA

AND:

SRI H.K. SRIRAMAPPA @ SRIRAMAIAH

S/O KENCHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

RESIDENT OF HUNASURU VILLAGE

JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 110.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS.QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 24.05.2022 PASSED ON I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN O.S.NO. 912 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU (ANNX-A).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. Defendant nos .

1 to 4 are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 24.05.2022 passed on the interlocutory application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC by the defendants in O.S.No.3132 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.912 of 2016) by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. O.S.No.912 of 2016 was filed by the respondent herein before the jurisdictional civil court, Bangalore Rural District seeking relief of specific performance of agreement for sale dated 09.09.2008. The said suit has now been transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hosakote and re-numbered as O.S.No.3132 of 2022. The contesting defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim. Application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC was filed by the contesting defendants in O.S.No.912 of 2016 to frame an additional issue with regard to limitation. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing of objection. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant nos.1 to 4 are before this Court.

4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that defendant nos.1 to 4 in paragraph no.6 of their written statement have raised a specific plea that the suit is barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that the agreement for sale was executed on 09.09.2008 and the suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement was filed in year 2016. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed as many as 5 issues in the suit. Perusal of the issues framed in the suit would go to show that, though there is a specific contention raised in the written statement filed on behalf of the contesting defendants that the suit is barred by limitation, no issue was framed by the Trial Court on the question of limitation. It appears that under the said circumstances, interlocutory application under Order XIV Rule 5 R/w Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the defendants with a prayer to frame additional issue which reads as follows:

"Additional issue Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation?"

5. The trial Court while considering the said application has recorded the finding that the suit is filed in time and therefore question of framing additional issue does not arise. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the same is required to be answered only after completion of a full-fledged trial in the suit. The Trial Court has erred in recording a finding that the suit was in time while considering an application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC. Since there is a sp