BHURARAM Vs. RAJMAL SHARMA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 11th of October, 2013 whereby the learned Trial Court declined the application dated 7th of September, 2013 under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC', for short), the writ petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court by way of instant writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Briefly, the essential material facts and particulars necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit in the year 2003 for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction, pleading that the agricultural land bearing khasra number 462 in Village Daulatpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, measuring 4.50 bigha, has been illegally sold to the respondent/ defendant number 1 (Rajmal Sharma), by Gram Panchayat, Nangal Siras in an auction. The learned Trial Court after having received the written statement from the respondents/defendants settled the issues on 12th of April, 2012. The petitioner/plaintiff as well as the respondents/defendants concluded their evidence and since 20th of March, 2013, the matter is pending for final arguments. The learned Trial Court on the application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC taking into consideration the reply submitted on behalf of the respondents/ defendants and after hearing the parties, dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 11th of October, 2013 observing that the controversy between the parties is with reference to sale deed dated 27th of January, 1998. While framing issue number 1 instead of date "27th of January, 1998", on account of typographical error "17th of January, 1998" has been mentioned. The Court below therefor, making necessary correction in the date as mentioned in issue number 1 i.e. the sale deed dated "27th of January, 1998", be read instead of "17th of January, 1998" and a correction to this effect was made in red ink.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the Trial Court has not framed the issues as per mandate of Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff in order to reinforce his submissions referring to the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, placed reliance on the verdict delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Makhan Lal Bangal Versus Manas Bhunia & Ors, 2001 AIR(SC) 490wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-