A recent Jammu & Kashimir and Ladakh High Court ruling emphasized that while courts have the power to amend issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, such changes should only be made to ensure a just resolution of all issues between parties. It is important to note that once issues have been framed with the consent of both parties, they cannot be struck off or deleted without the parties consent.
Brief Facts:
The court in the instant case dealt with a petition in which the Petitioner had been sued previously by the Respondents, along with two others, for a piece of land in Kanipora tehsil B. K. Pora, Budgam. The suit was for a declaration and injunction regarding the land. The petitioner was one of the defendants and responded by filing a Written Statement and a Counter Claim. The Petitioner's counter claim was registered as a suit, and the original plaintiffs were now defendants in the present petition.
They denied executing a sale agreement or giving possession of the land to the petitioner in their written statement. In the counter claim, the petitioner asserted that the respondents had agreed to sell the land to him in 2017 for Rs. 60 lakhs and that he had taken possession of it. According to the petitioner, he had made improvements to the land, including building a road, a stone plinth, and a boundary wall. The petitioner had already paid Rs. 40 lakhs as advance sale consideration and was ready to pay the remaining amount at the time of executing the sale deed. Furthermore, the petitioner stated that they had sold 7 marlas of the land to the original proforma defendants, who had built a residential house on it.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended by the petitioner that in a preliminary hearing the trial court framed 5 issues at hand which were subsequently reframed in the next hearing with addition of several other issues. Therefore, the petitioner argued that the order passed by the trial court is invalid.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The main contention by the respondent was that the impuged order passed by the trial order stands valid because it is well within the powers of the court to reframe the issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code.
Observations by the Court:
The court examined the arguments from both parties and noted that the trial court framed five issues on March 18th, 2019, and re-framed them on June 24th, 2019, including Issue No. 9, which questioned the defendant's legal options without a sale contract. On March 19th, 2023, the trial court passed an order framing the issue of whether the suit is maintainable in its present form. The court emphasized that while courts have the power to modify issues, they cannot be changed without mutual agreement after being framed by the court.
The court added that Rule 3 of Order 14 limits the power conferred by Rule 5. Courts can frame issues based only on materials presented in pleadings or answers to interrogatories, produced documents, allegations made on oath, or statements by pleaders. Courts cannot frame issues that haven't been pleaded, abandoned, or don't arise from pleadings, nor can they raise an issue without necessary foundation. The court stressed the importance of having sufficient particulars to frame issues and the need for courts to use their power judiciously and follow legal principles.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, the court found that the issue framed in the challenged order was unnecessary since it had already been addressed in Issue 9. The court determined that the issue could not have been framed under Order 14 Rule 3. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Mir Vs Nisar Ahmad Wani and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
Case No.: CM (2008/2023)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Ahmad Javid
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Atib Kant
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
