Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, defendant in a suit for permanent injunction, filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of an additional issue regarding the maintainability of the suit in the absence of a prayer for declaration of title, based on paragraphs 6(v), (vi), and (vii) of the written statement. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that since the plaintiff had not filed a rejoinder, there was no denial and hence no additional issue was required. The High Court, in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, held that the Trial Court's approach was erroneous. The court observed that issues are framed from the pleadings of both parties, and the absence of a rejoinder does not prevent the court from framing issues that arise from the written statement. The court emphasized that the power under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC is to frame issues from the allegations made in the pleadings, and the court must frame all necessary issues to determine the real controversy between the parties. The impugned order was quashed, and the Trial Court was directed to frame the additional issue as proposed by the defendant. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Framing of Issues - Order XIV Rule 5 CPC - Additional Issue - The Trial Court dismissed the defendant's application for framing an additional issue on maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction without declaration of title, solely because the plaintiff had not filed a rejoinder. The High Court held that the absence of a rejoinder does not preclude framing of issues; issues arise from pleadings and the court must frame them to determine the real controversy. The order was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to frame the additional issue. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for framing an additional issue on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed a rejoinder to the written statement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 09.01.2018, and directed the Trial Court to frame the additional issue as proposed by the defendant.
Law Points
- Framing of issues under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC
- Maintainability of suit for permanent injunction without declaration of title
- Rejoinder not necessary for framing additional issues
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (08) 26
Writ Petition No.11883 of 2018 (GM-CPC)
Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice
Sri P.N. Hegde (for petitioner), Sri K.S. Narayanaswamy (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Trial Court dismissing an application for framing an additional issue.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the Trial Court order dated 09.01.2018 and direction to allow I.A. No.18 filed under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC.
Filing Reason
The Trial Court dismissed the application for framing an additional issue on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed a rejoinder, hence no denial.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court dismissed I.A. No.18 on 09.01.2018 in O.S. No.2975/2016.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for framing an additional issue on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed a rejoinder?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner/defendant argued that the additional issue arose from the pleadings in the written statement and the absence of a rejoinder does not bar framing of issues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, issues are to be framed from the pleadings of the parties, and the absence of a rejoinder does not prevent the court from framing issues that arise from the written statement. The court must frame all necessary issues to determine the real controversy.
Judgment Excerpts
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to approve the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.18 filed by the defendant under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC.
The said prayer has been disallowed by the Trial Court with the observations that since the plaintiff has not filed rejoinder, there is no denial and hence, no additional issue is required to be framed.
Procedural History
The defendant filed I.A. No.18 under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC in O.S. No.2975/2016 before the XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking framing of an additional issue. The Trial Court dismissed the application on 09.01.2018. The defendant then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XIV Rule 5
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
