The central legal point established in the given judgment is the mandatory duty of the Trial Court to frame all necessary issues arising from the pleadings and the need to consider the ownership of the land, potential damage caused by the electric pole, and the minimization of such damage.

( 1 ) THIS suit and the trial of the suit appears to be suffering from material irregularities and illegality.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that, this plaintiffs appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court namely XVIII Additional city Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 23-1-1989 whereby the Trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit for injunction directing the defendants -respondents to remove their electric pole which according to the plaintiff, they put on the plaintiffs land and which according to the plaintiff-appellant has the tendency of causing severe damage as because of the hanging wires on plaintiffs land, it has created obstruction to the raising of construction on that land. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff has asserted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property where the Electricity Board has put up electric pole. Plaintiff has asserted that he has issued notice to defendants to take steps to remove the pole and they have not taken any steps in that regard. In paragraph 2, the plaintiff has very clearly stated that the officials of the Karnataka Electricity Board without looking into the fact whether it is a private property or not has put up electric pole in the property belonging to the plaintiff. Plaintiff requested the Chairman and the 2nd defendant to remove the pole put up by them, but of no avail. No doubt, plaintiff has asserted that after the application was filed before the Chairman and protest made by the plaintiff, the Electricity Board stopped giving connection but did not remove the pole. In para 2 (a) of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the wires put up by the defendants pass through the vacant site of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff proposes to put up construction and for which he has obtained sanctionedplan. Due to the wire hanging on and passing through the property of the plaintiff, plaintiff is not in a position to put up any construction on the site and the entire site will be a waste if the wires are not removed. The plaintiff has further stated in the plaint that the cause of action to have accrued in his favour in July 1983.

( 3 ) THE defendants have filed their written statement. In para 1 of the written statement, it has been stated that the allegations in para 1 are to be proved by the plaintiff. It has further been stated that as regards the allegation in para 1 relating to litigation between the plaintiff and one Ramachandraiah the same was not denied as being there, but it was asserted that suit was bad as the plaintiff has not made Ramachan- draiah as a party. The defendants in the written statement have stated that the pole has been erected for the purpose of extending electricity facility to the residents of Hassan Nabi and Kavalbyrasandra. In para 2 it has been stated that the land on which the pole has been erected, belongs to the plaintiff is not correct, nor admitted and the defendants asserted that the electric pole has been erected in 1982 on the public road and the land does not belong to the plaintiff at all. In paragraph no. 3 it has been stated that the defendants deny the plaintiffs allegation that the plaintiff is the owner of the place or land where the electric pole has been put up. It has further been stated that this is a public place and the plaintiff has no right to claim or interest over that land and it was asserted that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Court, in this case, framed the following issues. 1. Does the plaintiff prove that the defendants have put up electric pole in the suit property illegally? 2. Whether the said pole is liable to be removed? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction? and no other issues have been framed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit taking the view that in view of the provisions of the indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as held and opined by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court i