KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SUBHASH CHAND SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhav Jain for the respondent.

(2.) In reply, Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the provision of Order 50 Rule 1(a)(iii) of the Code of Civil Procedure (In short the 'Code'), it is not mandatory or incumbent upon the Judge, Small Cause Courts to frame any issue before proceeding for adjudication of the dispute as is required in other civil suits. It has also been submitted that the judgment in the case of Akhil Kumar Jain , being relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, since has not noticed the provision of Order 50 Rule 1(a)(iii), hence, cannot be said to be a good law.

(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.