SHIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Chaubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Mr. Sant Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the Nagar Panchayat and Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 5 are real brothers. A suit for partition under Sec. 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by respondent No. 5/Kashi Prasad, impleading the petitioner as defendant in respect to plot No. 408/1, area 0.903 hect., situated at Village Baruwa Syodha, Naraini, Pergana and Tahsil Naraini, District Banda, claiming 1/2 share. Petitioner appeared in the aforementioned suit and filed his written statement. During pendency of the aforementioned suit, petitioner has filed an application dtd. 6/10/2022 under Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, for framing additional issues in the suit. On behalf of respondent No. 5, objection was filed to the petitioner's application dtd. 6/10/2022. The Trial Court/Sub Divisional Officer rejected the petitioner's application vide impugned order 11/9/2023. Against the order dtd. 11/9/2023, petitioner filed a revision under Sec. 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue. The aforementioned revision was heard and dismissed vide order dtd. 9/1/2025. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief:

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that application for framing additional issues, has been rejected by the trial court in arbitrary manner, as such, the order rejecting the petitioner's application for framing additional issues is wholly illegal. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case as set up in revision. He further submitted that plot No. 408 has been got divided in two parts, i.e., 408/1 and 408/2, without any order of the court, as such, the application has been rightly filed by the petitioner for framing additional issues in the suit for partition filed by respondent No. 5 but the trial court has illegally rejected the petitioner's application. He further submitted that the issues should be framed in the suit in view of the pleading of the parties. He further submitted that under the impugned order the prayer for framing the additional issues has been rejected without considering the aforementioned principle of law. He submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and petitioners application dtd. 6/10/2022 filed under Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code should be allowed.