HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2053 OF 2022
Date: 17.02.2023
Between:
Dr. K.Babu, s/o. late Kurakula Sayulu,
Aged about 68 years, occu: Doctor,
r/o. Flat No.103, Chola's Residence,
Vasavi Nagar Colony, Karkhana,
Secunderabad and another.
.....Revision Petitioners/
Petitioners/
Defendants 2 & 3
and
K.Mallesh, s/o. late Kurakula Sayulu,
Aged about 72 years, occu: Retd.Govt.Employee,
r/o. H.No.41/2 & 42, Fisherpua Picket,
Secunderabad.
.....Respondent No.1/
respondent no.1/
plaintiff
K.Narender, s/o. late K.Narasimha,
Aged about 55 years, occu: Business,
r/o. 3-44-144, Sy.NO.14 beside plot no.41,
Ishaq Colony, Near AOC Gate, Secunderabad
and others.
... Respondents 2 to 9/
Respondents 2 to 9/
Defendants 1, 4 to 9
The Court made the following:
PNR,J
CRP No.2053 of 2022
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2053 OF 2022
ORDER:
First respondent instituted O.S.No.59 of 2022 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad praying to grant decree of partition and separate possession in the plaint schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' properties; for settlement of accounts for the properties occupied or alienated by the defendants; to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating and disposing of any portion of the joint family property.
2. In the said suit, I.A.No.1048 of 2021 filed by respondents 5, 7 to 9, to implead as defendants, was ordered on 27.12.2021. After they came on record, they filed Written Statement along with counter claim. On 27.07.2022, they have filed Memo enclosing additional draft issues. By Order dated 04.08.2022, trial Court framed additional issues. Opposing framing of additional issues and praying to frame only one issue revision petitioners, who are defendants 2 and 3 filed I.A.(SR).No.6484 of 2022. On due consideration of the matter, trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
PNR,J CRP No.2053 of 2022 3
3. I have heard learned senior counsel Sri Hari Haran for petitioners, learned counsel Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu for the respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri Eranki Phani Kumar for the respondents 3 and 4, and the learned counsel Sri B.Mohan for respondents 5 to 9.
4. Learned senior counsel for petitioners would contend that the suit is of the year 2000. By framing additional issues at the instance of implead respondents, the Court has virtually reopened the trial at a belated stage, whereas evidence was completed in the year 2008. Under the guise of additional issues, the defendants filed application to recall four witnesses, who were examined almost a decade back and summoning witnesses to introduce new documents. It is nothing but conducting re-trial. He would submit that there was no application of mind in passing the impugned Order. He would further submit that forgery cannot be pleaded by defendants, who are unconcerned with earlier transactions. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia and others1. 1 (2001) 2 SCC 652 PNR,J CRP No.2053 of 2022 4
5. According to learned counsel for respondents, the respondents were impleaded as defendants only on 27.12.2021. After they were made parties, they filed Written Statement and immediately filed Memo to frame additional issues. In the said facts, merely because suit is of the year 2000, the framing of additional issues cannot be held as not valid. They would contend that as per the practice in vogue on filing draft issues, if a party has any objection, it must file objections, whereas the petitioner has not opposed the additional draft issues. The issues can be framed and recasted at any stage including at the stage of rendering judgment. They would submit that in the year 2018 also, some additional issues were framed. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C.P.Joshi2.
6. According to learned counsel for first respondent/plaintiff, this Revision is filed only to drag on the proceedings. Learned counsel supports the other respondents on framing of additional issues.
7. Issues are to be framed based on the pleadings of the parties to the litigation. Issues are framed to ensure that the 2 (2011) 11 SCC 786 PNR,J CRP No.2053 of 2022 5 parties to the litigation come to trial with all issues clearly defined, to ensure that each side is fully aware to the questions that arise for consideration. Framing of issues enables the parties and the Court to determine the real dispute(s) between the parties and the area of conflict is narrowed so that specific attention can be paid to the real dispute/controversy.
8. In Makhan Lal Bangal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down broad guidelines on framing of issues. In Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"19. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted". Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho [(1897-98) 25 IA 195] , Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar [AIR 1953 SC 235] , Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh [AIR 1961 SC 1097] , Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal [(2002) 2 SCC 256 : AIR 2002 SC 665] , Ishwar Dutt v. Collector (L.A.) [(2005) 7 SCC 190 : AIR 2005 SC 3165] and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. [(2010) 4 SCC 518 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 207])".
9. Having regard to the scope of framing issues and additional issues and precedent decisions, the trial Court is right in observing that 'whether the said issues are interrelated PNR,J CRP No.2053 of 2022 6 or any further issue required to be framed can be taken care while appreciating the evidence and even during the process of delivering the judgment'.
10. Having regard to the submissions made on consideration of the issue raised in this Revision, I do not see any error in the decision of the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 17.02.2023 Kkm PNR,J CRP No.2053 of 2022 7 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2053 OF 2022 Date: 17.02.2023 kkm