BHAIYALAL Vs. BUNDABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners/defendants have challenged the order dated 30.09.2011, whereby application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing additional issues is rejected by the court below.

(2.) SHRI N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the plaint, the date of death of Narayan Prasad is shown as Samvat 2025, whereas in the written statement the date of death is disputed and it is alleged that the real date of death is Samvat 2010. He submits that the said date of death has relevance to decide whether the legal representatives are entitled for particular benefits and, therefore, the court below has erred in not framing the issues regarding date of death of the said person.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the order and submits that the issues raised by the petitioners can very well be looked into while deciding the existing issues. By placing reliance on AIR 1956 SC 593 [Nagubai Ammal and others Vs. B. Shama Rao and others] and 2004 (3) MPLJ 571 [Ganpat Rao Vs. Ashok Rao and others], Shri Sharma submits that the parties are aware of the real issues involved in the matter and, therefore, even otherwise they can lead evidence and assist the Court to determine the real question involved.