Telangana High Court
Dr K Babu And Another vs K.Mallesh And 8 Others on 17 February, 2023
Bench: P Naveen Rao
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. 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.
(2001) 2 SCC 652
PNR,J
CRP No.2053 of 2022
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
(2011) 11 SCC 786
PNR,J
CRP No.2053 of 2022
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
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
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2053 OF 2022
Date: 17.02.2023
kkm
