##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4469 WP No. 102188 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.102188 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SHRI RAMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA KALASAD, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KADAKOL, TALUK: SAVANUR, HAVERI DISTRICT-581118.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. PARVATI W/O. UDACHCHAPPA KODEPPANAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,

2. KUMAR GIRISH S/O. UDACHCHAPPA KODEPPANAVAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,

3. KUMAR KRISHNA S/O. UDACHCHAPPA KODEPPANAVAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,

MOHANKUMAR

4. UDACHCHAPPA S/O. NILAPPA KODEPPANAVAR, B SHELAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

Digitally signed by ALL ARE R/O. ICHCHNGI VILLAGE, TALUK: SAVANUR, MOHANKUMAR B HAVERI DISTRICT-581118.

SHELAR Date: 2026.03.27 …RESPONDENTS

15:51:44 +0530 (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.21 DATED 19.02.2026 IN O.S.NO.281/2025 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR,

VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

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

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4469 WP No. 102188 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI )

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging

the order dated 19.02.2026 passed on I.A.No.21 in O.S.No.281 of 2015 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,

Savanur.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.281

of 2015 for partition and separate possession. The petitioner filed a written statement contending that the suit filed by respondents 1 to 3 is not maintainable for non- joinder of necessary properties. The trial court has not framed any issue on the said point. Thereafter, the petitioner has taken a defence that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary properties. The trial court framed issues, and the parties went for trial. When the case was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed an application in IA No. 21 under Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC to frame an additional issue. The said application was opposed by respondents 1 to 3, contending

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4469 WP No. 102188 of 2026

HC-KAR

that the said application is filed at a belated stage, only with an intention to protract the trial. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, rejected the application vide order dated 19.02.2026 with a cost of Rs.500/-. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed this

writ petition.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner has taken a specific defence in the written statement that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. The trial court could have framed an issue on the point of maintainability of the suit for partition and separate possession. He submits that the petitioner has filed an application to frame an additional issue in I.A.No.21. The trial court rejected the application only on the ground that, it is filed at a belated stage. He submits that the petitioner has already laid evidence on the point of

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4469 WP No. 102188 of 2026

HC-KAR

maintainability of the suit regarding the non-joinder of necessary properties, and further undertakes that the petitioner will not lead any evidence on the additional issue to be framed. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow

the writ petition.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the petitioner has filed the said application only with an intention to protract the proceedings. He submits that the petitioner after having understood the pleadings, went for a trial, and has filed this application