Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1075 (KAR)

Mumtaz Begum v. Mohammed Madarsab

2023-09-08

E.S.INDIRESH

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Meer Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dtd. 13/6/2023, passed in OS No.185 of 2016 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan, in rejecting IA No. 9, has presented this writ petition. 3. Sri Sachin M.Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to the defence taken by the defendants at paragraphs 15 and 17 of the written statement and argued that, the Trial Court ought to have allowed IA No.9 filed by the defendants to frame the additional issues as prayed for and therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited attention of the Court to the issues framed by the Trial Court, particularly, referring to issue No.4 and argued that, the Trial Court be allowed to answer the said issue and the IA No.9 is filed at the fag end of the proceedings and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having take note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the pleadings, particularly, plaint and written statement. The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration in respect of the subject matter of the land and the defendant has raised plea of the maintainability of the suit. The Trial Court has framed issues on 5/2/2019, and issue No.4 reads as under: "4. Whether defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?' 6. In that view of the matter, taking into account the fact that, the Trial Court has framed as many as six issues and Issue No.4 is relating to the defense raised by the defendants and with regard to paragraphs 15 and 17 of the written statement, I am of the view that, the Trial Court will answer the same in accordance with law. It is needless to state that IA No.9 is filed after the arguments on the part of the plaintiff and therefore, interference is not necessitated at this stage. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the observations made above.