The court emphasized the necessity of proposed issues to decide the dispute between the parties and set aside the rejection of the proposed issues in the suit.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 01.04.2019 in CS No. 729/17 titled Ashish Bansal and. Ors. v. Sunil Goel whereby the proposed issue filed by the petitioner on 25.03.2019. were rejected on the ground that the said issue mainly pertains to the transaction between defendant Nos. 1& 2 which is not subject matter of the suit.

2. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had filed the petition in the DRT challenging the auction sale of the property upon which the petitioner claims promissory title to the extent of 600 square yards, the same was rejected. Learned counsel submits that the said rejection was further carried out in appeal before DRAT which too was dismissed.

3. Mr. Gupta submits that the said rejection by DRAT was subsequently challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) bearing No. 4078/2015 which too was dismissed by way of the order dated 03.12.2015. by this Court.

4. The petitioner had challenged the said decision of the Writ Petition bearing No. 4078/2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which too dismissed the SLP (C) Nos. 19441-42/2016 with a caveat that the observations made by this Court in the impugned order of the Writ Petition would not be taken to be a reflection on the rival contentions advanced by the parties. Learned counsel submits that it was in that context that the subject suit was filed claiming the following reliefs:—

“a) pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendant No. 1 abovenamed thereby directing the Defendant No. 1 and his agents, employees, servants, representatives and permitted assign, if any, to remove themselves from the suit property being 600 sq. yds. out of total land of 4 Bigha 16 Biswa situate in Khasra No. 157 of Village Rajpur Khurd, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi as shown in colour red in rough sketch/site plan produced in the case and to handover the vacant, peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs;

b) pass a decree for recovery of money in favour of the Plaintiffs abovenamed and against the Defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 14,40,000/- (Rs. Fourteen Lacs Forty Thousand only) towards user and occupation charges of the suit property;

c) grant pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. on above sum of Rs. 14,40,000/- (Rs. Fourteen Lacs Forty Thousand only);

d) pass a decree for recovery of money in favour of the Plaintiffs abovenamed and against the Defendants liable jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest thereon @12% p.a. towards damages and compensation;

e) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendants abovenamed thereby restraining the defendants, their employees, agents, representatives, successors and/or permitted assigns from laying any right, title and interest in suit property being 600 sq. yds. out of total land of 4 Bigha 16 Biswa situate in Khasra No. 157 of Village Rajpur Khurd, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi as shown in colour red in rough sketch/site plan produced in the case atleast till identification and demarcation of the mortgaged property in accordance with law;

f) award cost of the suit; and

g) pass such further order(s) considered just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiffs.”

5. Learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid chequered history as also the prayer made in the suit submits that the two issues which were sought to be added to the issues framed vide the impugned order would be relevant and core to the disputes between the parties.

6. Learned counsel submits that rejecting the said issue on the basis that the issue pertaining only to the transaction between defendant No. 1 and 2 and not being subject matter of the suit, as noted by the learned Trial Court, is contrary to the pleadings on the record and therefore, such dismissal ought to be set aside.

7. Per