AMAR NATH Vs. SUKHDEV CHAND BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a suit for possession of the shop in dispute by way of redemption against the respondents, out of whom 1 to 4 were the mortgagees and 5 to 6 were in possession as tenant. According to plaintiff, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were inducted as tenants by the mortgagee- respondent No. 1 and 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court in the first instance framed the following :

(2.) Onus on this issue was placed on defendants Nos. 5 and 6. The said defendants moved two applications under Order 14 Rule 5, one for deleting the said issue and the other for framing the following issue :

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties referred to above, it is apparent that the plaintiff and the said respondents had set up different claims. The issue now framed covers only the averments made by the plaintiff and the other issue which has been ordered to be deleted covered the claim made by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 Even if the present issue is decided against the plaintiff, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 set no right to keep the possession of the suit property because the plaintiff can be denied the relief of possession. In against them only if they prove their claim of tenancy under the plaintiff. Both these issues, therefore, arise from the pleadings of the said parties and were necessary for doing complete justice between the parties The trial Court, therefore, acted illegally in deleting the issue which was already framed. The impugned order is consequently modified to this extent that the issue framed in the first instance is ordered to be restored in addition to the issue framed by the impugned order. The trial Court shall now proceed further in the suit in accordance with law. Order accordingly.