SANJAY PAL Vs. DINESH BHARGAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/defendants have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2019 whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC.

(2.) Respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking the relief of declaration of sale deed as void, permanent injunction and in the alternative the relief of possession. The plaintiff has valued the suit on the basis of the value of the property in the sale deed and paid the ad-valorem Court fee. The defendants have filed the written statement and on the basis of pleadings the trial Court has framed ten issues on 04.02.2019. The defendants filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC that the issue no.6 has unnecessarily been framed as no cause of action has accrued for claiming the relief of possession because the plaintiff is also seeking the relief of permanent injunction claiming himself to be in possession. By this application the defendants are also seeking clarification and re-framing of issue No.4 and 10 on the basis of the controversy involved in the matter.

(3.) The issues are always framed on the basis of pleadings in the plaint, written statement and controversy involved between the parties. It is settled law that it is permissible for the plaintiff to claim alternative relief also. Since he has claimed the relief of possession then the Court has rightly framed the issue on the relief of possession, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly observed that on the basis of pleadings the issue No.6 has been framed. So far as clarification on issues No.4 & 10 are concerned these issues must have been framed on the basis of the proposed issues given by the parties. The Court may re-frame the issues at any stage of the trial, if so required. At this stage, the petitioners have filed the application immediately after framing of issues. No case for interference is made out in the impugned order.