It is the duty of the court to frame issues that direct the attention of the parties to the main questions of fact necessary to be decided, and vague pleadings cannot be the basis for refusing to frame additional issues for trial.

By this petition in revision the defendant petitioner seeks the setting aside of the order of the trial Court, by which it refused to frame certain additional issues for trial.

2. The suit out of which this petition arises was brought by the plaintiff-opp. party, for possession of a house and damages for use and occupation, on the ground that the house was let out on rent for a period of one year (ending on 30-4-1951) by the plaintiff to the defendant but the defendant failed to vacate on the expiry of that period and in spite of a notice having been served on him asking to vacate. There was a previous suit for the same but on appeal it was dismissed as pre-mature by this court.

3. The defendant opposed the suit on several grounds and also claimed a .set-off in respect of certain expenses incurred by him for repairs and the costs awarded to him in the previous suit, but the pleadings as they stand at present do not fall within Sec. 108(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, nor do they relate to a period after the Transfer of Property Act was applied to this territory. I shall refer to these pleas as I consider each of them. The trial Court refused to frame issues as regards the claim in set-off until court-fee for the same was paid, and in that the learned trial Judge was quite right, and the same point was also not pressed before me by the petitioner.

4. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues :

1. Was there any agreement between the parties ? If so, what are the terms ?

2. Has the defendant been occupying the two-storied house on plot No. 10, Gimson Road even after the expiry of the terms of the lease and is he, therefore, liable to pay damage to the plaintiff ?

3. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for this suit against the defendant ?

4. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled in this suit ?

5. The first issue is not specific and fails to give an idea of the agreement set up and by which party it was set up. That issue obviously arose out of the plea of defendant which was that at the time of letting out the house to the defendant, there was a stipulation that the lease would be renewed year after year. It is not clear whether this stipulation is embodied in the deed by which the lease was given or finds place in a separate deed or is oral.

It was necessary to know this, because, what will be the effect of such an agreement even if proved will depend on whether it was oral or by deed and whether the deed was registered or unregistered. In this connection it might be mentioned, that the duty of framing issues rests on the court. It follows therefore that the trial Judge should insist on clear pleadings, and if the pleadings on any point are vagues, he should order the party concerned to clear it.

The object of framing issues, is to direct the attention of the parties to the main questions of fact necessary to be decided and it is difficult to see how this can be achieved, or how the duty of raising issues which has been laid under the law on the court can be discharged, if the pleadings are vague or do not give the necessary details.

6. In this connection it might also be observed that the framing of issues is a very important part in the trial of a suit. In fact by framing the issues the court announces its decision that the result of the suit depends on those points only and the parties would be debarred from adducing evidence on any other point or points. In this part pleadings have been far from satisfactory, and it has been noticed that parties were allowed to deviate from the pleadings at the stage of evidence and lead evidence to prove matters which were never pleaded.

This is not permissible in any system of justice, and the Civil Procedure Code definitely does not allow it. It is clear that such a course is objectionable from more than one point of view and if permitted it will more often result in injustice than justice. The courts in this territory must firmly set their face, against this practic