( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 215 of 2000 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur is the petitioner. He feels aggrieved by the order, dated 18-3-2004 passed by the trial court in I. A. No. 21 of 2004 filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the suit against the respondent for a three-fold relief viz. , for grant of perpetual injunction restraining him from using the wall which is described in the schedule, for a direction to the respondent to remove the portion of the structure raised by him on the northern side of the suit building and for payment of damages assessed at rs. 3,000/- as compensation for demolition of certain structures. In the body of the plaint, he made a reference to the filing of O. S. No. 9 of 2000 in the same Court for the relief of perpetual injunction and the compromise decree passed therein. He alleged that subsequent to the compromise decree, the respondent brought about several constructions and caused damage to his building.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed written statement denying the allegations of the petitioner. One of the pleas raised by the respondent is that the present suit is barred by res judicata and principles of estoppel in view of the decree passed in O. S. No. 9 of 2000.

( 4 ) THE trial Court framed a preliminary issue viz. , "whether the suit is maintainable under Section 11 of C. P. C. ". However, it proceeded to record evidence touching on various aspects of the matter. It was in this context, thatthepetitionerfiled the application with a prayer to frame additional issues. The trial Court rejected the same on taking the view that there is no necessity to frame any additional issues for adjudication of the case.

( 5 ) SRI A. M. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purport of the decree in O. S. No. 9 of 2000 was restricted to the one for the relief of perpetual injunction, whereas the relief claimed in the present suit is for specific directions as to removal of structures, payment of compensation etc. He contends that if for any reason, the trial court was of the view that the suit can be disposed of on the strength of the preliminary issue, there was no necessity for it to record evidence and conversely, the very fact that evidence is being recorded discloses that issues need to be framed on the controversy. He submits that the approach of the trial court cannot be sustained in law.

( 6 ) SRI A. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the relief claimed in the present suit is almost the replica of the one claimed in O. S. No. 9 of 2000, and that if the petitioner felt that the decree passed in o. S. No. 9 of 2000 is not respected or flouted, steps ought to have been taken under order XXI C. P. C. He submits that the plea of resjudicatacan be dealt with as a preliminary issue and there was no necessity for framing any additional issues. Hefurthersubmits that it is permissible, for a Court to record findings on certain controversies, though issues are not framed in relation thereto.

( 7 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether in the facts of the case, the trial court was under obligation to frame additional issues. The suit was filed for different kinds of reliefs. It is a matter of record that on earlier occasion, the petitioner filed O. S. No. 9 of 2000 against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction. The suit ended in a compromise decree. Since the respondent took the plea of res judicata, the trial Court framed the preliminary issue, which is extracted in the preceding paragraphs. To that extent, the petitioner also did not feel any grievance.

( 8 ) HAVING framed a preliminary issue, the trial Court proceeded to record evidence. It was in this context that the petitioner filed i. A. No. 21 of 2004 for framing additional issues. He proceeded on the premise that the evidence is to be add

Click Here to Read the rest of this document