The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proposed issues must be relevant and not duplicative of existing issues, and the court has the discretion to decide on the relevance of additional issues. Additionally, the court emphasized that the onus of proof becomes less significant after evidence has been led by the parties.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the ADJ-05, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS DJ No. 5574/2016, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner herein under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC').

2. The Petitioner is the original defendant and Respondent is the original plaintiff in the civil suit.

2.1. The civil suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of House No. 3, Ground Floor, Model Eye Hospital, Block - F, Lajpat Nagar - II, New Delhi (`suit property') and mesne profits, on 26.07.2012. The relationship between the parties is admittedly that of a landlord-tenant.

2.2. The issues were framed by the Trial Court on 18.12.2014. The parties have thereafter, led their evidence which stood concluded in the year 2019. The matter has since then been pending at the stage of the final arguments.

3. It was at this stage of proceedings on 07.09.2020 that an application was filed by the Petitioner (i.e., the defendant) under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking framing of additional issues and recasting of issues.

3.1. The said application remained pending and has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.05.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has proposed the following three (3) additional issues to be framed and has also proposed the onus of the said issues:

i. Whether the alleged governing body of the plaintiff society could have passed the resolution dated 15.7.2011 in view of challenge to the membership of the members of the governing body pending in CS No.9914/2016 titled as "Shri Harveer Singh & Ors. Vs. All India Blind Relief Society & Ors." and CS No.208667/2016 titled as "Vinod Kumar Vs. All India Blind Relief Society & Ors."? OPP

ii. Whether the alleged governing body of the plaintiff society is/was competent and has the authority to file and maintain the present suit against the defendant? OPP

iii. Whether the suit is barred under section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD

4.1. He states that though the Trial Court in the impugned order has observed that the issue nos. (i) and (ii) proposed to be framed by the Petitioner are already covered in the existing issue no.(i), the Petitioner is not satisfied with the said finding and prays that a separate and specific issue should be framed in this regard.

4.2. He states that similarly with respect to the proposed issue no. (iii), though the Trial Court has returned a finding that said issue is a question of law and will be heard and considered at the time of the final arguments, he states that the said issue as well should be framed specifically.

4.3. He, further, states that the issue no. (i) which was framed by the Trial court on 18.12.2014 wrongly casts the onus of proof on the Petitioner herein whereas the onus of the said issue should have been placed on the Respondent.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the Respondent, who appears on advance service, states that the issues were framed by the Trial Court on 18.12.2014. She states that though on the said date of hearing, the counsel for the defendant had entered appearance subsequent to the order being passed, however, he was duly apprised of the said order on the same date of hearing.

5.1. She states that no objections were raised by the counsel for the defendant either on 18.12.2014 and or at any stage thereafter with respect to the casting of the onus of issue no. (i) framed on the said date or the issues itself.

5.2. She further states that though this application proposing fresh issues was filed in the year 2020, it was not pressed for hearing by the Petitioner and remained pending on the board of the Trial Court until 2023 i.e., when the matter was listed for final arguments.

5.3. She states that the matter is next listed before the T