( 1 ) THE Petitioner filed O. S. No. 20 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil judge, at bodhan, against the respondent, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. She pleaded that she is the daughter of the respondent. In his written-statement, the respondent disputed the very relationship, apart from denying the other allegations, made by the petitioner. The trial Court framed an independent issue, touching upon the relationship. The petitioner filed I. A. No. 233 of 2005 for reframing of the said issue. The application was resisted by the respondent. Through order dt. 5-10-2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this revision

( 2 ) SRI Balraj Bodhankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue, which was framed by the trial Court, is in such a form, that it would require the petitioner herein to prove the negative. He contends that since the denial, which gave rise to the framing of the issue, came from the respondent, it needs to be reframed, in a manner, that would place the burden upon the respondent.

( 3 ) THE very basis for the petitioner, to file the suit for partition was her alleged kinship viz. , she is the daughter of the respondent. The latter denied such relationship. He pleaded that he was no doubt married to gangamma, the mother of the petitioner, but there were no issues, out of their wedlock. He stated that within one year from the marriage, he divorced her, and the petitioner was born io the said Gangamma after such a divorce. He further pleaded that the said Gangamma got remarried to one person, by name Peeraji, and that the petitioner is the child of that couple. It was in this context, that trial Court framed an issue, which reads as under:"whether the plaintiff is daughter of the defendant born through gangamma".

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed the present I. A. , with a prayer to reframe the issue in the following manner:"whetherthe plaintiff is not the daughter of the defendant, born to Gangamma through Peeraji".

( 5 ) BEFORE any further discussion is undertaken, as to the permissibility or legality of the prayer of the petitioner, it needs to be noticed that the form in which the petitioner seeks amendment of the issue, is rather meaningless and self-contradictory. A bare perusal of the proposed issue discloses that on the one hand, the petitioner claims to be the daughter of the respondent (defendant), and on the other hand, the issue suggests that she is born to Gangamma through peeraji. Either the petitioner did not instruct her advocate properly or the latter was in an utter state of confusion, in framing the proposed issue. The petitioner could not have been the daughter of the respondent, and another person by name, Peeraji at one and the same time.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, let us proceed on the assumption that the petitioner asserted that she is the daughter of the respondent herein through Gangamma, and that she wanted the respondent, to disprove that assertion.

( 7 ) ON an earlier occasion I. A. No. 320 of 2003 was filed by one of the parties, and through an order in the said IA. D. N. A. test of the samples drawn from the petitioner, on the hand, and her mother Gangamma, and peeraji, on the other hand, was directed to be held. It is said that the test established that the respondent is not the father of the petitioner. The order was subject-matter of c. R. P. No. 766 of 2004. For the purpose of this C. R. P. , it is not necessary to refer to the said question, in detail.

( 8 ) ORDER XIV of C. P. C. is clear in its purport, as to the manner in which issues are to be framed. Similarly, Chapter VII of the indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Act) stipulates, in clear terms, as regards the existence of burden, on the parties, to prove the concerned issues. The need to frame an issue would arise, only when the assertion, made by one party, is denied by the other. If an assertion made by a plaintiff is not den

Click Here to Read the rest of this document