The court emphasized the importance of allowing arguments from the Bar and reserved the right to amend, alter, delete, or add to the issues, while also accepting an additional written statement and recasting the issues in the suit.

1. This is a revision petition by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam refusing to delete issue No. 2 framed in the suit. The controversy before me has been very much narrowed down by the very helpful attitude taken by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties before me and as such it has become unnecessary for me to go into the correctness or otherwise of the reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge for rejecting the plaintiff's application. But I cannot certainly accept the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge when he says that he does not want any argument from a member of the Bar appearing for a party on the ground that a particular issue requires to be deleted or to be recast in a particular manner. No doubt it is open to the court to accept or reject these contentions. But to say that it does not want any argument from the Bar, is an attitude which cannot certainly be encouraged by this Court. But as mentioned by me earlier, it is not necessary for me now to go very much into the reasons given by the learned judge.

2. The main ground on which the application for deleting issue No. 2 was filed by the plaintiff was that the said issue does not arise on the pleadings in the case. In this court Mr. M. Madhavan Nair, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, has filed an application, C.M.P. No. 820/1960 for accepting an additional written statement also. After hearing Mr. N. Parameswaran Moothathu, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that the additional written statement must be received and taken on file.

Accordingly, the additional written statement is accepted and will form part of the records.

3. As I thought it desirable to give a quietus to this matter by having the necessary issues also recast and framed by this court, I have framed the following issues in the suit. The issues as framed by the lower court will stand cancelled.

Issue No. 1. Is not the plaint document a promissory note? If so, is it not supported by consideration? Issue No. 2. Is the plaint promissory note a genuine document?

Issue No. 3. Was the plaint document stamped after its execution? If so, is it not invalid and inadmissible in evidence?

Issue No. 4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

Issue No. 5. What is the order regarding costs of the suit?

4. Though the issues have been framed by this court I make it very clear that if it is found necessary, it is open to the trial court to amend, alter, delete or add to the issues after hearing all parties concerned in the suit. The additional written statement filed by the defendant in this court will be sent to the trial court along with the records. There will be no order as to costs in the civil revision petition.