[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Varia Parambil Kuttan vs Engineer Components And Equipment on 13 January, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:1336
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8735 OF 2025
Varia Parambil Kuttan
Age 78 years, Occ: Retired
Flat No. D13, 4th Floor,
Golden and Silver Park
Co Society Housing Ltd,
Shivaji Nagar, Wagale Industrial
Estate, Thane - 400 604.
Also At V. P. Kuttan
Valiyaparambil House,
Via Cherpulassery,
Dist: Palakkad
State: Kerala - 679 503. ...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Engineer Components
And Equipment
Plot No. 29, Road No. 10,
Wagale Estate, Thane - 400 604. ...Respondent
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Mr. C.S. Joshi, with Abhay Joshi, for the Petitioner.
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
Dr. D. S. Hatle, with Deepak Jamsandekar, Nirmiti Lawane and
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.01.13
20:07:21 +0530
Umesh Chavan, for the Respondent.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 5th JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th JANUARY 2026
JUDGMENT:
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner-Defendant assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an
order dated 15th February 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Thane, whereby the Applications (Exhibits 45 and 47)
in SCS No. 484 of 2017, preferred by the Petitioner, for framing
additional issues came to be rejected
3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as
under:
3.1 The Respondent-Plaintiff is a partnership firm. The Plaintiff is
engaged in the business of fabrication. The Defendant was employed
with the Plaintiff as a "Foreman". The Plaintiff claimed to have provided
to the Defendant a furnished accommodation, being Flat No. D-13, 3 rd
Floor, Golden and Silver Part Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Thane
("the suit flat") as a service tenant. The Defendant was to use and
occupy the suit flat till he was in the employment of the Plaintiff.
3.2 The Plaintiff asserts the Defendant resigned from the Plaintiff's
firm with effect from 31st December 2007. Thereupon, the Plaintiff
called upon the Defendant to vacate the suit flat vide letter dated 24 th
August 2009. As the Defendant did not vacate the suit flat, a legal
notice was addressed to the Defendant on 6 th August 2010. In reply, the
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
Defendant contended that the suit flat was given to him by way of gift
on account of outstanding services rendered by the Defendant to then
partners of the Plaintiff. As the Defendant did not vacate the suit flat
despite repeated requisitions and the legal notice dated 15 th May 2017,
a Suit came to be instituted for the eviction of the Defendant under
Section 16(1)(f) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ("the Rent
Act, 1999").
3.3 The Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing Written
Statement. On the basis of the pleadings and material on record, the
trial Court settled issues on 22nd August 2024, inter alia, whether the
suit flat was let to the Defendant for use as the Defendant was in the
service of the Plaintiff, and whether the Defendant, in turn, proved that
the Plaintiff had allotted the suit flat to him on ownership basis.
3.4 The Defendant filed an Application (Exhibit 45) for framing
addition issues on the aspects of locus standi of the Plaintiff to institute
the Suit, existence of a cause of action, bar of limitation and proper
valuation of the suit claim and payment of proper Court fees thereon.
By way of another Application (Exhibit 47) the Defendant sought
framing of another additional issue; whether the title suit was
maintainable in the present form?
3.5 The Applications were resisted by the Plaintiff.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
3.6 By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to
reject the Applications opining that the issues framed by order dated
22nd August 2024 were correctly settled to encapsulate the controversy
and adjudicate all the disputes between the parties, and the additional
issues proposed by the Defendant were not required to be framed as the
contentions in the Written Statement on those points were vague in as
much as one line objections were raised by the Defendant without
material particulars.
3.7 Being aggrieved the Defendant has invoked the writ jurisdiction.
4. I have heard Mr. C.S. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
and Dr. D. S. Hatle, the learned Counsel for the Respondent at some
length. The learned Counsel took the Court through the pleadings and
the material on record.
5. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would urge that
the learned Civil Judge has decided the Applications for framing
additional issues in a causal and perfunctory manner. The Defendant
had raised specific grounds questioning the maintainability of the suit,
the bar of limitation and improper valuation of the suit claim. The
learned Civil Judge was, therefore, not at all justified in rejecting the
Applications by observing that the Defendant had raised one line
objections.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
6. Amplifying the submission, Mr. Joshi would urge that as there
was no material to indicate that, on the date of the institution of the
suit, the Plaintiff was a registered Partnership Firm and the person suing
had been shown as partner in the firm, the suit was clearly barred by
the provisions contained in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act,
1932 ("the Act, 1932"). Secondly the Defendant had raised specific
ground of bar of limitation. In the reply to the legal notice, dated 6 th
August 2010, the Defendant had categorically denied the case of the
Plaintiff that the Defendant was a service tenant and, thus, institution of
the suit on 9th August 2017 was clearly barred by law of limitation.
7. In opposition to this, Dr. Hatle, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent, would urge that, the Defendant had resorted to dilatory
tactics by filing one application after another so as to squat on the suit
flat despite the relationship of employer and employee having come to
an end in the year 2007. The instant Applications were part of the said
strategy. Dr. Hatle would submit that, the contentions in the Written
Statement regarding the maintainability of the suit, bar of limitation
and Court fees etc were bald and vague. The learned Civil Judge was,
therefore, fully justified in declining to frame additional issues on the
basis of such vague pleadings.
8. I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid rival
submissions canvassed across the bar.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
9. The imperativeness of framing correct issues in a civil trial can
hardly be over-emphasized. Framing of correct issues is of critical
salience for a correct decision of the lis. The object of framing an issue
is to encapsulate the real dispute between the parties, narrow down the
area of controversy and tie down the evidence to be adduced in support
or rebuttal.
10. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal Vs
Manas Bhunia and Ors1
"19. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of
framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that
day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on
which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and
departures therefrom. The date fixed for settlement of issues
is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute
between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is
narrowed and the concave mirror held by the court reflecting
the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues the disputes
on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis
largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly
determining the real points in controversy which need to be
decided. The scheme of Order XIV of the Code of Civil
Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an
issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is
affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material
proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should
form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on
1 (2001) 2 SCC 652.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
the court to read the plaint/petition and the written
statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the
assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material
propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at
variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which
the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their
counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing
of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary
obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to
exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An
omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for
remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having
been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition
may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the
parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of
fact and the court may at once pronounce the judgment. If
the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact,
the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the
parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence
shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on
controversies, not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall
normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in
support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him.
The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and
arguments and decision to a particular question so that there
may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then
proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the
dispute was decided.
11. Under the scheme of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 ("the Code"), an issue arises when a material proposition of law or
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. There ought to be
clear and categorical pleadings to necessitate framing of an issue. Bald
and vague contentions in the pleadings do not sustain an issue.
12. In the case of Bhagat Singh and Ors Vs Jaswant Singh, 2 the
Supreme Court underscored the necessity of adequate pleading. It was
enunciated that a vague contention in the pleading would not cloth
such contention with the definiteness of the requisite pleading and will
not make it incumbent on the parties to lead evidence for or against the
existence of a certain custom and the Plaintiff's case not coming within
it. The mere fact the Defendants contended in the Written Statement
that the Plaintiff could not be adopted according to the custom does not
tantamount to making the requisite pleas and, therefore, the view taken
by both the Courts below cannot be said to be wrong. In fact, this view
was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XIV of the
Code.
13. In the case of T. H. Musthaffa Vs M.P. Varghese & Ors, 3 the
Supreme Court reiterated that if the pleadings did not contain the
necessary foundation for raising an appropriate issue, the same cannot
go to trial. Any amount of evidence in that regard, however excellent
the same may be, will be futile.
2 AIR 1966 SC 1861.
3 (1999) 8 SCC 692.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
14. In Pandu Dhondi Yerudkar & Anr Vs Ananda Krishna Patil, 4 the
learned Chief Justice, in the context of framing an issue regarding the
tenancy, sounded a note of caution by observing that, a little caution is
required to be exercised before the Court actually frames such an issue.
Under Order XIV of the Code an issue can only arise when a material
proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the
other. When a vague plea is made by the Defendant contending that he
is tenant of the land, the Court should hesitate to frame such an issue
on such a vague plea, unless the Defendant is able to give particulars
showing the time when the tenancy was created, the person by whom it
was created, and the terms on which it was created. Normally the rules
of pleadings require that these particulars are the minimum particulars
which a man must furnish before he can request the Court to frame an
issue as regards the claim made for tenancy.
15. The aforesaid being the position in law as regards the framing of
issues, reverting to the facts of the case, a bare perusal of the contention
in the Written Statement, especially in paragraph 15 under the caption
"preliminary objection" there are indeed bald and vague allegations. It
reads as under:
"15) Preliminary objections:
i) This suit is not maintainable in Law.
4 AIR 1975 Bom 52.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
ii) Not supported with bear documents. It is for the
authorized signatory to prove his nexus with partnership firm
and his locus-standi in the matter.
Iii) Act of Shri C. Ranganathan and Shri M Damodaran,
partners of the company, in the year 1990 allotted the flat free
of cost to this Defendant can well be construed act on behalf of
partnership firm.
iv) Authorized partner's right to sue to this Defendant third
party is yet to be decided.
v) If affairs of the company completely wound up impliedly
binding on agent the liability.
vi) Suit is lacking necessary party in the suit. Society is not
cited as a party.
vii) Limitation -- there is no any letter to this Defendant at
the time of allotment of this flat in June 1990 about terms and
conditions. From the entry itself it is evident that this flat is
given free of cost to this Defendant which is confirmed from
subsequent conduct of partners also. No flat rent, maintenance
is deducted from his salary at any point of time. From which it is
crystal clear that suit is barred by Limitation. This Defendant
made it clear on 16.8.2010 his stand and suit filed in 9.8.2017
by way of issuing various notices again and again is not tenable
and suit is barred by Limitation.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
viii) Court Fee -- Suit flat value in the year 1990 was
Rs.01,44,000.00 enhanced to Rs.02,50,000/- and present
market value from ready-reckoner is Rs.50 to 60 Lakh (Fifty to
Sixty Lakh). No Court fee is affixed when possession is claimed
on the pretext of service quarter when this Defendant's entry as
an owner.
ix) No cause of action -- Cause of action mentioned in suit is
imaginary. On this count also suit is not maintainable."
16. In the wake of the aforesaid nature of the contentions in the
Written Statement, which lack material particulars to substantiate the
purported preliminary objection, the learned Civil Judge cannot be said
to have committed any error in observing that the Defendant had raised
vague and one line objections which do not warrant framing of the
additional issues.
17. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urged two
grounds, principally. First, the bar of limitation. Second, the bar under
Section 69(2) of the Act, 1932. According to Mr. Joshi, the trial Court
ought to have framed the issues on these two points which go to the
root of the matter.
18. On the first count, the thrust of the submission of Mr. Joshi, was
that since the reply to the first legal notice was given on 16 th August
2010, wherein the Defendant had made known his stand in clear and
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
categorical words, institution of the suit on 9 th August 2007 was clearly
barred by law of limitation. This submission is required to be
appreciated in the light of the nature of the suit. As noted above, the
suit has been instituted for eviction on the statutory ground provided
under Section 16(1)(f) of the Rent Act, 1999.
19. The submission premised on the suit being one for reliefs sans a
declaration of title is wholly inapposite. For a suit for recovery of
possession under the provisions of the rent control legislation, the
period of limitation is 12 years, and not 3 years as was sought to be
canvassed by Mr. Joshi.
20. The aforesaid position was clarified by the Supreme Court in the
case of Shakuntala S Tiwari Vs Hem Chand M Singhania, 5 wherein,
after an analysis of the provisions contained in the Limitation Act and
co-relating those provisions with the provisions of Section 12 and 13 of
the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
("the Rent Act, 1947"), the Supreme Court emphasized that either
Articles 66 or 67 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to a suit for
eviction of a tenant under the Rent Act, 1947, and, there is no scope of
the Application of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, in any view of the
matter.
5 AIR 1987 SC 1823.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
21. In case of Ganpat Ram Sharma and Ors Vs Gayatridevi, 6 the
Supreme court further clarified that Article 66 would govern a case for
recovery of possession of the premises under Section 14 of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 because determination of tenancy by notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was no longer
necessary. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 are
material hence extracted below.
"22. The next aspect of the matter is which article of the
Limitation Act would be applicable. Reference was made to
Article 66 and Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963
(hereinafter called the Limitation Ac t) which stipulates that
for possession of immovable property the cause of action
arises or accrues when the plaintiff has become entitled to
possession by reason of any forfeiture or breach of condition.
Article 67 stipulates a period of twelve years when the
tenancy is determined. Article 113 deals with suit for which
no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule.
On the facts of this case it is clear that Article 66 would apply
because no determination in this case is necessary and that is
well settled now. Determination by notice under Section 106
of the Transfer of Property Act is no longer necessary."
(emphasis supplied)
22. In view of the aforesaid position in law, there is no substance in
the contentions on behalf of the Defendant that the issue of limitation
was required to be framed.
6 AIR 1987 SC 2016.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
23. On the aspect of bar to the institution of the suit under Section 69
(2) of the Act, 1932, the submission of Mr. Joshi is clearly misconceived.
Suffice to note that, the bar under Section 69(2) of the Act, 1932 does
not govern a suit for recovery of possession in enforcement of a
statutory right. (Raptakos Brett & Co Ltd Vs Ganesh Property 7 and
Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr Vs Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Anr)8
24. The last aspect which requires consideration is the treatment to
the contentions on behalf of the Defendant in regard to the proper
valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees thereon. The learned Civil
Judge was of the view that in the Plaint, the Plaintiff had undertaken to
pay the additional Court fees as may be ordered and, therefore, the
Plaintiff could be directed to pay requisite Court fees at the time of
passing of judgment, and, resultantly, the issue of correct valuation of
the suit claim and the Court fees thereon was not required to be framed.
25. From the perusal of the averments in the Plaint, especially
paragraph 21 thereof, it becomes evident that the Plaintiff had valued
the suit claim at Rs.6,30,000/-, being the amount of the compensation
which the Defendant would be liable to pay and interest thereon. The
Plaintiff does not seem to have taken into account the value of the suit
claim for the purpose of eviction of the Defendant from the suit flat and
7 (1998) 7 SCC 184.
8 (2000) 3 SCC 250.
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
the Court fees required to be paid thereon under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959.
26. Undoubtedly, the Court can direct the successful Plaintiff to pay
deficit Court fees. Yet, the framing of an issue regarding the correct
valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees that may be required to be
paid thereon, would equip the Court to determine those aspects in a
structured manner and the parties would also be in a better position to
adduce evidence and address the Court, if required, on the issue of the
correct valuation of the suit claim and the payment of the Court fees
thereon.
27. Resultantly, this Court is of the view that the trial Court could not
have declined to frame an additional issue on the aspect of the proper
valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees required to be paid
thereon.
28. Hence the Petition deserves to be partly allowed to the extent of
framing additional issue in regard to proper valuation and Court fees
only.
29. Hence, the following order:
(i) Petition stands party allowed.
(ii) The Application (Exhibit 45) stands party allowed.
(iii) The following issue is framed as an additional issue:
-WP-8735-2025.DOC
Whether the Suit claim is properly valued and appropriate
Court fee is paid?
(iv) The trial Court shall decide the aforesaid issue along with
all other issues at the time of final adjudication of the suit,
as expeditiously as possible.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
