Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.30/2007 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed a memo dated 06.09.2018 seeking to frame additional issues and to amend the plaint. The trial court, by order dated 15.04.2019, rejected the memo on the ground that the issues sought to be framed were already decided by the earlier order dated 18.04.2018 passed on an application filed by the defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, and that the memo was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that the trial court had erred in rejecting the memo without considering its merits. The court noted that the earlier order dated 18.04.2018 was passed on an application filed by the defendants, and the petitioners were not parties to that application. Therefore, the principle of constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC did not apply. The court held that the trial court ought to have considered the memo on its own merits and framed additional issues if necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to consider the memo dated 06.09.2018 afresh on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 14 Rule 5 - Framing of Additional Issues - The trial court has power to frame additional issues at any stage before pronouncement of judgment if necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. The court rejected the memo without considering its merits, holding that the issues were already decided by earlier order. Held that the trial court ought to have considered the memo on its own merits and not dismissed it on the ground of res judicata or constructive res judicata. (Paras 8-10)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 11 - Res Judicata - Constructive Res Judicata - Explanation IV to Section 11 - The principle of constructive res judicata applies only when a party had an opportunity to raise an issue in a former proceeding and failed to do so. In the present case, the earlier order dated 18.04.2018 was passed on an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC filed by the defendants, and the petitioners were not parties to that application. Held that the memo filed by the petitioners was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata. (Paras 8-10)
C) Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings - The petitioners sought to amend the plaint to incorporate additional facts regarding the nature of the suit property and the character of possession. The trial court rejected the memo without considering the merits of the proposed amendment. Held that the trial court should have considered the memo on its own merits and not dismissed it on the ground of res judicata. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the memo filed by the petitioners seeking framing of additional issues on the ground that the issues were already decided by the earlier order and that the memo was barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, and directed the trial court to consider the memo dated 06.09.2018 afresh on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Order 14 Rule 5 CPC
- Section 11 CPC
- constructive res judicata
- Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (07) 44
W.P. No.23611/2019 (GM-CPC)
K.N. Phanindra, Sr. Counsel for Smt. Vaishali Hegde, Adv. for petitioners; Smt. Azra J. Dundge, AGA a/w Smt. K.P. Yeshodra, AGA for respondents
Sri. E.S. Satish Kumar, Sri. E.S. Ramesh Kumar, Sri. E.S. Sampangiram, Sri. E.S. Sridhar, Smt. Anuradha, Smt. Kavitha
Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Tahsildar, Gowribidanur Taluk
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the trial court rejecting a memo for framing additional issues and amendment of plaint in a suit for partition and injunction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit) sought setting aside of the trial court's order dated 15.04.2019 and a direction to reject the memo dated 06.09.2018 in the interest of justice and equity.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the memo filed by the petitioners seeking framing of additional issues and amendment of plaint on the ground that the issues were already decided by an earlier order and that the memo was barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had earlier passed an order dated 18.04.2018 on an application filed by the defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, which the trial court considered as having decided the issues sought to be raised by the petitioners.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the memo filed by the petitioners seeking framing of additional issues on the ground that the issues were already decided by the earlier order dated 18.04.2018?
Whether the memo was barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the memo without considering its merits and that the earlier order dated 18.04.2018 was passed on an application filed by the defendants, and the petitioners were not parties to that application, hence the principle of constructive res judicata does not apply.
The respondents argued that the trial court's order was correct and that the memo was barred by res judicata as the issues had already been decided.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court has the power under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC to frame additional issues at any stage before pronouncement of judgment if necessary for determining the real controversy. The principle of constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC applies only when a party had an opportunity to raise an issue in a former proceeding and failed to do so. In the present case, the earlier order dated 18.04.2018 was passed on an application filed by the defendants, and the petitioners were not parties to that application, hence the memo was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata. The trial court ought to have considered the memo on its own merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court has power under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC to frame additional issues at any stage before pronouncement of judgment if necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties.
The principle of constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC applies only when a party had an opportunity to raise an issue in a former proceeding and failed to do so.
In the present case, the earlier order dated 18.04.2018 was passed on an application filed by the defendants, and the petitioners were not parties to that application. Therefore, the memo filed by the petitioners was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed O.S. No.30/2007 for partition and injunction. During the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, which was disposed of by order dated 18.04.2018. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a memo dated 06.09.2018 seeking framing of additional issues and amendment of plaint. The trial court rejected the memo by order dated 15.04.2019. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 14 Rule 5, Section 11, Explanation IV to Section 11, Order 6 Rule 17
- Constitution of India: Article 227
