M Vs. K GUDIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 11. 3. 1996 passed by the Munsiff, Sidlaghatta in Kolar District, in Original Suit no. 8/89 rejecting the petitioner's application for referring the additional issue under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for decision as well as against the order allowing I. A. No. 6 filed by the respondents for the deletion of the additional issue framed on 1. 8. 1988. The additional issue that had been framed on 1. 8. 1992 reads as under; whether the first defendant is a tenant under the second defendant of the suit schedule land and whether this Court had no jurisdiction as contended in paras 11 and 12 of the written statement? this additional issue whether the first defendant is a tenant under the second defendant of the suit schedule land had been framed on 1. 8. 1992 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties especially the written statement filed by the first defendant. The first defendant moved the application (I. A. 5) praying that the additional issue may be referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, for decision and as mentioned earlier, the plaintiff moved the application (I. A. 6) under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the deletion of the said additional issue. The Trial Court deleted the additional issue and refuse to refer it to the Land Tribunal. The question of reference of the additional issue may arise only when it is found that the Court below acted illegally by deleting the additional issue. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below illegally deleted the additional issue which had been framed after hearing both the parties on the application for framing of the additional issues. Order 14 Rule 5 of the C. P. C. confers power on the Court to amend and to construct the issues. There cannot be any dispute that the Court has got power to strike out the issues. It will be appropriate at this juncture to quote Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. and the said provision reads as under : order 14 Rule 5 - Power to amend, and strike out issues. (1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced. The Court has jurisdiction to strike the issues which were unnecessary or which do not arise from the pleadings of the parties, but has wrongly been framed or introduced without there being any pleading in the written statement. It means the power to strike out the issue in respect of the issues wrongly framed or introduced i. e. , issues which do not arise from the pleadings, bus which have been introduced. In such cases, the application for striking out the issues made, the Court must apply its mind whether the issue concerned did arise from the pleadings or not and whether it was necessary for the determination of the entire controversy, if not, then the Court below could come to the conclusion that it was wrongly framed or introduced as it did not arise from the pleadings or the material on which the issues are to be framed. In the present case, it appears that the Court below has not applied its mind to these aspects of the matter. The approach of the Court is based on misconstruction of the order of this Court in CRP. No. 5122/91 etc. indicate the reasoning of the Court, it would be appropriate to quote paragraph 11 of the order of the Court below, which reads as under: