IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.26214/2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. NARASAMMA

W/O. LATE HANUMANTHARAJU

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

2. SRI GANGAPPA

S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT

MARASANDRA VILLAGE

MADHURE HOBLI

DODDABALLAPURA TALUK

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. KALEEM ULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE

FOR NARENDRA KUMAR G T., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND:

by

SHARADAVANI

B 1. SMT. M D SUNANDABAI

Location: High

W/O LATE M.H. NARAYAN SINGH

Court of

Karnataka AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

R/AT NO.29, 3^RD CROSS

SUBEDARPALYA

YESHWANTHPUR

BENGALURU - 560022.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. HEMANTH R. RAO., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, IN OS NO. 186/2024 ON IA UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 OF CPC DATED 05.07.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.186/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 05.07.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC to frame an additional issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the suit and to treat the said issue as a preliminary issue, was rejected by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners/defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the petitioners/defendants entered appearance and not only filed the written statement, but also put forth a counterclaim for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property. In the said counterclaim, the petitioners/defendants valued the counterclaim at Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) and took up a contention that, since the maximum upper limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court was only Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in term of Section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, the Trial Court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit and the counterclaim.

4. Despite the petitioners having taken up such contention regarding lack/want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the Trial Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit, the Trial Court did not frame any issues in this regard and as such, accordingly, the petitioners/defendants filed the instant application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC seeking framing of additional issue regarding lack/want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the Trial Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit and to treat the said additional issue as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the matter. The said application having been opposed by the respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court byway of the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that, since the petitioners had taken up a specific contention/defence as regards lack/want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the Trial Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit and the counterclaim, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application and an additional issue deserves to be framed in this regard by setting aside the impugned order. However, on instructions he submits that insofar as treating the said additional issue as preliminary issue is concerned, since the t