Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants against the order dated 27.03.2004 by which the trial Court, after hearing the arguments finally in a suit for specific performance of contract, held that there is necessity of framing two issues more and framed the two issues.

3. The issue No.1 framed by the trial Court is whether the plaintiffs incurred expenditure of Rs.5 lakhs after entering into agreement for sale of the house in question and in case, no relief for specific performance of contract can be granted, then whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of Rs.5 lakhs.

4. The second issue is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs is entitled for decree of specific performance of contract?

5. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs specifically for specific performance of the contract valuing the suit at Rs.1,98,000/-whereas the trial Court has framed the issue for relief of decree of Rs.5 lakhs despite the fact that the said relief was not prayed for by the plaintiffs in their plaint nor the plaintiffs sh