Telangana High Court
Katikanapalli Raja Komru Kummari ... vs Posampalli Vinoda, on 27 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Revision Petition No.529 OF 2025
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.01.2025 in
returning I.A.No.397 of 2024 in O.S.No.7 of 2014 (hereinafter
will be referred as 'impugned order') on the file of learned Senior
Civil Judge at Peddapalli, the plaintiffs preferred the present
Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will
be referred as per their array before the learned Senior Civil
Judge at Peddapalli (hereinafter will be referred as 'trial Court').
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
available before this Court are that initially a suit vide O.S.No.7
of 2014 was filed by sole plaintiff seeking declaration of title and
consequential perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule
property against defendant Nos.1 and 2. During the pendency
of the suit, the sole plaintiff passed away and his legal
representatives were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 as
per the orders in I.A.No.369 of 2022. While stood thus, the
plaintiffs filed petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure vide I.A.No.397 of 2024 to reopen the case so as to
frame additional issues with regard to registered Will Deed
MGP,J
2 CRP_529_2025
dated 04.01.2014. However, the learned trial Court returned
the said petition on the ground that there are no pleadings in
the amended plaint and thus, no additional issues to be framed.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed
by the plaintiffs.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record including the
grounds of revision.
5. The first and foremost contention of the plaintiffs is that
the plaintiffs/petitioner Nos.2 to 7 were impleaded after the
death of plaintiff No.1/petitioner No.1 through the act of Will
Deed and it is necessary to frame additional issues.
6. The other contention of the plaintiffs is that the trial
Court failed to exercise discretionary jurisdiction which is
vested in it and dismissed the application.
7. It is pertinent to note that the learned trial Court has not
dismissed the application but in fact returned the petition as
there were no pleadings in the amended plaint so as to frame
additional issues. When a petition is returned by the court, it is
the duty of the plaintiffs to resubmit the petition by complying
with the objections. But in the instant case, the petitioners
have preferred Civil Revision Petition without exhausting the
MGP,J
3 CRP_529_2025
remedy available to them before the trial Court in complying
with the objections raised by the learned trial Court. Thus, the
plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke Article 227 of the
Constitution in filing the present Civil Revision Petition. Even
as per the version of the plaintiffs, it is the discretionary power
of the trial Court in framing additional issues. Thus, the
learned trial Court after exercising its discretionary power
returned the petition on the ground that there are no pleadings
so as to frame additional issues. Hence, the above contention of
the petitioners/plaintiffs is untenable.
8. An issue, in a legal context, can be framed based on the
material propositions of fact or law that are affirmed by one
party and denied by the other. Framing issues helps to focus
the trial and ensure that the court's decision is based on the
relevant facts and legal arguments. Thus, an issue can be
framed based on the pleadings. Even in the absence of any
petition on behalf of either side, the Court may recast issues suo
motu at any time before passing of a decree including when the
arguments have concluded. Due care and caution must be
applied in cases where issues are re-caste with special emphasis
on the scope of pleadings between the parties and the necessity
of such modification or cancellation of issues.
MGP,J
4 CRP_529_2025
9. Further, the issues must not be re-caste directly in the
judgment. Even when the same is done, the parties must be
given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of adducing
evidence. In the instant case, the plaintiffs are seeking to frame
additional issues based on the registered Will Deed executed by
the plaintiff No.1. On behalf of plaintiffs PWs 1 to 3 were
examined and whereas on behalf of defendants DW1 was
examined. Admittedly the said Will Deed has already been
marked as Ex.A12 during the course of trial through the
evidence of PW2 subject to objection. As can be seen from the
cross examination of PW2, a suggestion was given to PW2 by the
learned counsel for the defendants that Ex.A12 is not valid
since it was executed in the absence of subject matter of the
properties. Even in the cross examination of PW3, a suggestion
was given by the learned counsel for the defendant that EXs.A6
to A12 were created and produced before Court. Even in the
cross examination of DW1, a suggestion was given to DW1 that
his father got executed registered Will Deed in favour of his
mother and also brothers. Thus, it is clear that the subject
(Ex.A12 - Will Deed) on which the plaintiffs are seeking to frame
additional issues has already been introduced in the evidence
and it was subjected to cross examination.
MGP,J
5 CRP_529_2025
10. It is pertinent to note that the dispute between the parties
pertains to the year 2014 and the suit has come to the
penultimate stage of submissions of arguments after completion
of trial. The issues have been framed way back in the year
2016. The evidence of both the parties concluded in the month
of January, 2024 and the case was adjourned to 24.02.2025 for
pronouncement of judgment. Thus, filing of the application for
framing of additional issues at the penultimate stage of the case
only reveals the clear intention of plaintiffs to procrastinate the
litigation and also to cover up the lacunae at their end. It is not
the case of the plaintiffs that the registered Will Deed came into
existence recently. The plaintiffs also did not explain as to
what kind of additional issues are to be framed with regard to
Will Deed under Ex.A12. In Baini Prasad (died) through legal
representatives v. Durga Devi 1, the Honourable Supreme
Court observed as under:
"12. Now, what remains to be considered is whether the
appellant herein/defendant has pleaded and proved his plea of
estoppel. The appellants would contend that non- framing of the
question of estoppel as an issue is not fatal in the facts and
circumstances as also in view of the evidence available on record, in
the case on hand. To buttress the contention, the appellants rely on
the decision of this Court in Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati
Subba Rao. The relevant recital in the paragraph 5 of the said
decision reads thus:-
"5. ...No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one,
which was framed, could have been more elaborate; but
since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival
case and led all the evidence not only in support of their
contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it
1 2023 INSC 95
MGP,J
6 CRP_529_2025
cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to
the case, or that there was that mistrial which vitiates
proceedings. We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit
could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also
that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which
has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right
conclusion.""
11. As per Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a
court can frame or amend issues at any stage before passing a
decree, as necessary to determine the matters in controversy
between the parties provided that the parties must be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard and of adducing
evidence. However, in the instant case, both the parties have
adduced their respective evidence in connection with Ex.A12
Will Deed. A court can give a finding even without formally
framing an issue, especially if the parties have presented
evidence and arguments on the contested point, and the court
is satisfied that the parties were aware of the issues in dispute.
If sufficient evidence and pleadings are available, the court can
go into the question and decide the matter, even if an issue was
not formally framed. In view of the principle laid down above
and considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, since the parties proceeded with the trial of the case fully
knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in
support of their contentions but in refutation of those of other
MGP,J
7 CRP_529_2025
side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue is fatal to the
case.
12. In MB Sanghvi v. Secretary, Madras Chillies Merchant 2
the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the Court should
not determine an issue which does not arise on the pleadings.
The main object of framing issues is to ascertain the real
dispute between the parties by narrowing down the area of
conflict and determine where the parties differ. An obligation is
cast on the court to read the plaint and the written statement
and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel
for the parties, material propositions of fact or of law on which
the parties are variance. The evidence shall be confined to the
issues. As stated supra, though issue has not been framed, both
the parties have adduced sufficient oral and documentary
evidence. 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. Where the parties went
to trail with full knowledge that a particular point was at issue,
they have not been prejudiced and substantial justice has been
done, absence of an issue is not fatal to the case so as to vitiate
the proceedings. Since both the parties have already adduced
2 AIR 1969 SC 530
MGP,J
8 CRP_529_2025
their respective evidence in connection with Ex.A12 Will Deed,
there is no necessity of reopening the case or giving an
opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, more
particularly when the suit is of the year 2014 and posted for
judgment after hearing both the sides.
13. Moreover, a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution can be filed only when there is an error apparent
on the face of the record, indicating a jurisdictional issue or a
manifest miscarriage of justice, and not for correcting mere
errors of law or fact. In the instant case, since there are no
pleadings in the amended plaint, the learned trial Court has
rightly returned the petition. In such circumstances, the
plaintiffs ought to have complied with the objections raised by
the trial Court. Moreover, it is to be seen that the plaintiffs have
not sought for any relief based on Ex.A12 Will Deed. It is not
the case of the plaintiffs that there are pleadings in the
amended plaint with regard to Ex.A12 Will Deed. Since there
are no errors apparent on the face of the record in the impugned
order passed by the learned trial Court, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the findings arrived by the learned trial
court and thereby this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
MGP,J
9 CRP_529_2025
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
However, to meet the ends of justice, the learned trial Court is
directed to make necessary observations in the judgment about
genuineness or validity or otherwise of Ex.A12 Will Deed and its
impact on the rights of the parties in respect of suit schedule
property. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 27.03.2025
AS
