DINESH KUMAR Vs. ASHA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for revisionist.

(2.) Present revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment/order dtd. 7/4/2022 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 1, Mathura in SCC Case No. 01/2017 (Smt. Asha Agarwal and another vs. Dinesh Kumar), and/or to allow the application 74Ga of the revisionist.

(3.) Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that earlier SCC Suit No. 01 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party No.1, upon which revisionist-defendant has preferred written submission and replica has also been filed. Accordingly, considering the written submission, issues were framed on 6/3/2018. It is next submitted that to decide the SCC Suit, it is necessarily required to frame additional issues with regard to title as well as landlordship. Therefore, revisionist-defendant has moved application under Sec. 23 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1887') numbered as 74-Ga, which provides return of plaints in suits involving questions of title. The said application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that after completion of evidence and during the course of arguments, just to linger on the proceeding, the application was moved. It is also observed in the impugned order that while deciding the case, if required, additional issues would be framed. It is further submitted that under Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ''Code, 1908'), it is required that before passing a decree, Court may amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, but in the impugned order, it is observed that while delivering the judgment, if required, Court may frame additional issues, which is contrary to the provisions of Code, 1908. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Rameshwar Dayal vs. Banda (dead) through his L.Rs. And another; ARC 1993 (1) 249. He has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Vikas Pawar vs. Smt. Tara Rani and another; 2005 (1) ARC 196 and Satish Chandra Agarwal vs. Ashok Jaiswal ; 2016 (2) ARC 605.