ANAND CHOUDHARY Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition is directed against order of learned trial Judge dt. 10.01.2013 rejecting application filed by defendant -petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. In the eviction proceedings after the written statement came to be filed issues were framed on 25.11.2009 and as it reveals from the record that the defendant petitioner moved application at later stage under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking additional issue to be framed to the effect that the rent which the respondent plaintiff is claiming was not paid but utilised towards improvement undertaken by the petitioner defendant of the rented premises referred to in para -3 of the suit with prior permission. The learned trial Judge taking note of the submissions made observed that the issues were framed on 25.11.2009 & noted by both the parties and even on merits there was no sufficient reason forthcoming for granting permission to frame additional issue and accordingly dismissed the application.

(2.) THE main thrust of submission of counsel is that from the order -sheet it reveals that it was noted by plaintiff's counsel and not by the defendant petitioner or his counsel and that appears to be factually incorrect and he has referred to plaintiff petitioner and apart from the fact referred to, the additional issue even if framed as prayed for may not in any manner defer the pending proceedings.

(3.) THIS Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned trial Judge under order impugned which may require interference. Consequently, the petition is without merit & accordingly stands dismissed.