The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of framing distinct issues based on material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other, as required by the Civil Procedure Code, to guide the trial, avoid unnecessary evidence and arguments, expedite trials, and ensure a fair and just decision.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. Though the suit is ripe for framing of issues but neither counsel has proposed any issues.

2. Time available does not permit me to peruse the pleadings, to frame the issues and especially when the plaintiff does not appear to be in any hurry to proceed with his suit.

3. The counsel for the plaintiff states, (i) that the plaintiff has instituted this suit for partition of several immovable properties, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the said properties and for recovery of mesne profits and (ii) that issues as to the entitlement of the plaintiff to the said reliefs of partition, permanent injunction and mesne profits may be framed.

4. However that is as good as not framing any issues inasmuch as from the plaint on record itself it is evident that the entitlement of the plaintiff to the said reliefs is to be adjudicated. Framing such general and omnibus issues defeats the whole purpose of framing of issues.

5. The CPC, after competition of pleadings, vide Order XIV Rule 1 requires issues to be framed in the suit. Rule 1(1) of Order XIV provides that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Rule 1(2) of Order XIV provide that material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. Order XIV Rule 1(3) provides that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. Rule 1(4) provides that issues are of two kinds i.e. issues of fact and issues of law. Thereafter, Rule 1(5) requires the Court to, at the first hearing of the suit, after reading the plaint and the written statement and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or law the parties are at variance and proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend.

6. Framing of omnibus issues with respect to the reliefs claimed, as suggested, is in violation of Order XIV Rule 1(3) which requires distinct issues to be framed on each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Such omnibus issues also do not cull out the material propositions of fact or law on which the parties are at variance and do not tell the Court the issues on which the right decision of the case depends, as required by Rule 1(5). Framing such omnibus issues has the potential of the trial as well as the decision, going haywire.

7. Order XIV Rule 3 of CPC provides that issues may be framed either on the allegations made on oath by the parties or on the basis of allegations made in the pleadings or on the basis of contents of documents produced by either party.

8. Once issues have been framed, the Court, under Order XV Rule 3 of the CPC, has to consider whether existing undisputed evidence in the form of documents available on the record is sufficient to determine such issues and if not, to give an opportunity to the parties for production of evidence as may be necessary for decision upon such issues.

9. What falls from the aforesaid procedure is that the evidence led by the parties is to be guided by the issues framed and not by the reliefs claimed in the plaint. What further falls from the aforesaid procedure is, that the determination by the Court also has to be of the issues framed and not of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The grant of the relief claimed in the plaint is consequential to the determination of the issues.

10. The question, who is to lead evidence first i.e. whether the plaintiff or the defendant and if there are more than one defendants, which of the defendants, also depends upon the issues framed and the onus of proof thereof. Thus, if the onus of all the issues or of the principal issue is on the defendant and no