Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of T Savitha & Anr. v. B P Muniraju & Ors., has held that the Trial Court can frame an additional issue at any time before passing a decree under the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).

What is the Background of T Savitha & Anr. v. B P Muniraju & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioners (defendant in original suit) stated that the suit of respondents (plaintiffs in original suit) is one for partition as well as to declare that the sale deed dated 8th July 2004, 9th September 2005 and 12th April 2017 are not binding on the legitimate share of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction.
• The learned counsel further stated that the petitioners as well as other defendants filed their written statement, in which, the defendants specifically contended that the suit for partition by plaintiffs is only with regard to property which has been sold by them.
• The learned counsel submitted that there are pleadings to frame additional issues with regard to partial partition.
• The trial Court committed an error in rejecting to frame additional issue.
• Therefore, a writ petition has been filed before the Karnataka High Court to direct the trial Court to frame additional issues.
• The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit observed that under the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 14 of CPC, the Trial Court at any time before passing a decree, frame an additional issue on such terms as it deems fit as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.
• The Court further held that if an additional issue is framed, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs and on the other hand, it would assist the Court in deciding the real controversy between the parties.

What is Rule 5 of Order 14 of CPC?

• Order 14 of CPC contains provisions in relation to the settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon.
• Rule 5 of Order 14 of CPC deals with the power to amend and strike out issues. It states that-

(1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed.

(2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.

• The power under Rule 5 is exercisable for determination of all matters in controversy between the parties.
• So, it is obligatory upon the court of first instance to frame issues as are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties which may arise on the basis of the pleadings and in case the court refuses to settle an issue which is necessary, it certainly fails to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under law.
  • Thus, non-framing of additional issue which is necessary results in failure to exercise jurisdiction by the court concerned and as such is revisable.
• The power enshrined in Rule 5 however, is controlled by the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 14 which provides that the court may frame issues from all or any of the materials comprising allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories, documents produced by the parties, allegations made on oath by the parties or by any person present on their behalf, or statements made by the pleaders appearing for the parties, upon examination of witnesses or inspection of the documents.