Under which circumstances the high court can direct trial court to frame additional issues?

  Admittedly, there are specific pleadings of petitioner in

paragraph 9 of the plaint in respect of seeking injunction thereby

directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restrain the playground from being used for any purpose other than playing games and to designate officer of senior rank to supervise and restrain use of said playground from it’s use for any purpose other than playground. It is prayed in prayer clause ‘c’ of the plaint that,

“c] The Defendant No.2, by writ of mandatory injunction

be kindly directed to designate forthwith an officer of senior

rank to supervise and restrain use of the said playground for

any purpose other than games, and to ensure effective,

speedy & judicious redressal of grievance about the use of

the said playground for the purpose other than games.” {Para 6}

7. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and

2, it is stated that “….. the ground is used by nearby persons of the locality. However, there is no complaint from the persons of locality or defendant No.3, either to police or with this defendant in regards to the drinkers who are consuming liquor in the said ground. This defendant has no knowledge about the same and now will take appropriate steps and action for the safety of the persons residing there and the students.

8. Taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties,

plaintiff is justified in proposing issue in application Exhibit-31/D. While rejecting the application, Trial Court has failed to appreciate the pleadings of the parties in proper perspective. The impugned order to that extent is, therefore, unsustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.13144 OF 2022

NAMDEV PANDURANG SHINDE VS THE COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD AND OTHERS

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 16th JUNE, 2023

Print Page

Whether revision is maintainable against order passed in application for framing of additional issues?

From perusal of the order dated 2nd May, 2006, it is evident that while RCA No. 326 of 2003, Smt.Ganga Dei v. Dan Bahadur is pending in the Appellate Court and applications were moved on behalf of the appellants/revisionists C52 and C53 under Order XLI, Rule 25, CPC for framing an issue on section 41 -H of the Specific Relief Act and the Appellate Court rejected this application by the impugned order. It has been held by this Court in MANU/UP/0063/1978 : AIR 1978 All 260 (FB) that "the power to frame additional issues is a discretionary power of the trial Court. Additional issues may be framed if the Court thinks necessary for determining the matter in controversy. By an order refusing to frame additional issues or allowing an application for framing of additional issues no right or obligation of the parties in controversy is adjudicated upon by the Court. It is a matter only of procedure. The Court after examining the pleadings and other material on record as required under Rule 3, may frame issues. Since no right or obligation of a party is determined by an order refusing to frame additional issues such an order cannot be hold to be deciding a case between the parties and would not come within the ambit of the expression 'case which has been decided'. Similar would be the position in regard to an order by which additional issues are framed or amended." Hence in view of the judgment of this Court, framing or not framing additional issues is the discretionary power of the Court and if the Court thought that no additional issues is required to be framed, then it cannot be said that in the revision, the case will amount to decided finally. And, in my opinion, this is the correct position of law and after 1978 the Code of Civil Procedure has been drastically amended and there are drastic amendment in section 115, CPC and in view of the amended provisions of section 115, CPC, if any revision is finally decided if that will not amount to case decided, then no such revision can be entertained. In the present case if this revision is allowed, then the judgment of this Revisional Court will not amount to final disposal of RCA pending in the Court, even then the appeal is to be decided by the Court below and it will be more complicated in case the revision is allowed. If revision is allowed, then the case is to be remanded to decide afresh which is not permissible and, hence, I agree with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the opposite-party that against the order refusing to frame additional issues, revision is not maintainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Revision No. 78 of 2006

Decided On: 04.08.2008

 Ganga Devi  Vs. Dan Bahadur

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Shiv Charan (Sharma), J.

 Citation: 2009(4) Civil court cases 350 ALL

Print Page

Whether the court must frame additional issues?

It would be evident from perusal of Order 14, Rule 5 of the CPC that amendment of issues is in the discretion of the trial court. While framing issues no right or obligation of a party is determined. It is only a procedural matter. It is for the trial court to determine the controversy between the parties. It is well settled principle in law that it is not necessary to frame all issues. The issues are framed on question of law and fact and in order to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or the suit is liable to be dismissed. It would further be evident that if the court considers it necessary for determining the matter in controversy, it can raise an additional issue even at the stage of final arguments and allow parties to lead evidence on such issue.

9. However, in the present case, since the court is of the considered view that the issues intended to be added as additional issues are not necessary for determining the suit, the petitioner cannot compel the court for addition of those issues.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 429 of 2019

Decided On: 25.07.2019

Yatindra Narayan Choudhary Vs.  Ram Kumar Choudhary and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

Citation: AIR 2020(NOC) 45 Patna

Print Page

Whether court should frame additional issues if those issues are included in already framed issues?

Trial court has observed that present suit is a simple suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff against defendant/petitioner wherein relevant issues have already been framed, which are Issues No. 1 and 2. Additional issues, which are required to be framed as per submissions of defendant, have already been included in Issues No. 1 and 2. Trial court has further observed that no specific issue has been suggested by the defendant in the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.

7. Reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC appears to be absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

(Before Narendra Kumar Jain, J.)

Sheikhul Mashsaeikh Dewan Syed Zainul Abedin Ali Khan

v.

The Dargah Committee Ajmer & Another.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15676/2009

Decided on December 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 SCC OnLine Raj 4476

Print Page