TULSI RAM Vs. ARJAN SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendant's revision petition against an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge, declining to frame further issues at the instance of the Defendant in a suit for possession.

(2.) The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession and rent. After the evidence of the parties had been recorded and a date fixed for arguments the Defendant applied under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the framing of certain additional issues. The application was rejected by the trial court. The trial court observed that issues were originally framed as far back as October, 1968, and the present application for additional issues had been moved almost five years later when the case had already been fixed for final arguments. On the footing that these additional issues could have been applied for when the original issues were framed, it rejected the application as greatly belated.

(3.) At the outset learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has raised an objection that the revision petition does not lie because the order impugned by the Defendant does not amount to a case decided" within the meaning of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, the preliminary objection must be upheld.