[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ravinder Dutta vs Parvinder Dutta on 20 January, 2026
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 20th January 2026
+ CM(M) 149/2026 & CM APPL. 3794/2026
RAVINDER DUTTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chiraayu Trehan, Mr. Ritu Raj
and Mr. Dilip Shukla, Advocates.
versus
PARVINDER DUTTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Counsel (Appearance not given).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 3795/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 149/2026 & CM APPL. 3794/2026 (for stay)
3. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 04th December, 2025 passed
by the learned Trial Court in Civil DJ No. 132/2016, whereby the
application filed by the petitioner/defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 under Order
XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has
been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has appeared on advance notice
and accepts notice.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court
has passed the impugned order without duly appreciating the facts on record
and that the additional issues sought to be framed by the petitioner are
essential for the proper adjudication of the case.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
present petition has been filed only with a view to delay the proceedings and
that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
8. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under :
"...Perusal of the record shows that issues were framed
by the Hon'ble High Court on 23.02.2011 and defendant no.
1 was asked to begin first with his witnesses. Defence
evidence has already been concluded and during the cross
examination of plaintiff witness i.e. PW 1, defendant no. 1, 4
and 5 are seeking framing of additional issues. Order 14
Rule 5 CPC permits framing/ amending issues at any stage
for effective adjudication of the matter, however, Order 14
Rule 5 CPC cannot be used as and abuse at an advance
stage of a case. Reliance may be placed upon Salem
Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344.
The additional issues which the defendant no. 1, 4 and 5
want to be framed are substantially covered in the issues
already framed on 23.02.2011. Order 14 Rule 5 cannot re-
frame issues merely to "shift onus" after the evidence is led.
In the opinion of the Court there is no necessity for framing
of additional issues as the existing issues are sufficient for
just decision of the matter. Accordingly, the application
moved on behalf of defendant no. 1, 4 and 5 stands
dismissed."
9. A perusal of the record reveals that the issues were framed on 23rd
February, 2011, as noted in the impugned order. The application seeking
framing of additional issues was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 04th
October, 2025, i.e., after a lapse of more than 14 (fourteen) years.
10. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order passed in accordance
with law, and does not require any interference of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court does not find any
illegality in the impugned order. The present petition is dismissed as being
devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
JANUARY 20, 2026/nd/abk
