The court has the discretion to frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties and should avoid framing unnecessary or improper issues. Allowing additional issues at a late stage may result in a denovo trial, which is not warranted.

1. - The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 20.3.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

2. The plaintiffs non-petitioners filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendant-tenant neither tendered nor paid any rent for the last more than six months.

3. The defendant-tenant-petitioner admitted that he is the tenant in the suit shop but the shop was let out to him by Karnaram in the year 1957 as Karta of the Hindu Family. However on 19.7.1995, a new rent note was got executed, which is a registered document and by virtue of that new rent note, he became the tenant of Mishirilal who is also one of the legal heirs of deceased Karnaram. The defendant also denied that the plaintiffs have got any reasonable and bona fide personal necessity. It was further averred that the defendant ever committed any default in payment of rent and he is regularly paying the rent to Shri Mishirilal, in whose favour, the rent note was executed. The defendant also prayed that if the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the rent, the same may be determined.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 11 Issues.

5. After the framing of Issues, an application under Order 14, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code was moved by the defendant-petitioner for framing some additional Issues and for deleting certain Issues and for splitting of Issue No. 3. That application was hotly contested by the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit was filed some 20 years ago and the parties have led their evidence and now the case is at a final stage. Issues were framed in the presence of the parties and that too with the consent of the parties. The defendant- petitioner did not raise any objection regarding any issue so far. The defendant- petitioner was thus conscious of the dispute existing between the parties and the Issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings. Both the parties have led evidence. The plaintiffs therefore, prayed that at such a belated stage, there is absolutely no necessity for framing of additional issue or for detecting of any Issue. However, after hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 14, Rule 5 C.P.C.

6. The learned trial Court held that regarding default, Issue No. 4 has already been framed and regarding determination of rent, the learned trial Court was of opinion that at this stage, there is no necessity to determine the rent.

7. I have heard Mr. A.L. Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishri Lai, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners and have carefully gone through the impugned order.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was the duty of the trial Court to have framed the correct issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. He has submitted that since correct issues based on the pleadings of the parties have not been framed in the case and as such, the learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in refusing to frame the additional Issue. According to him, adjudication of additional Issue was necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties.

9. It was contended that Issue No. 3 has not been properly framed. In fact, it comprises of two Issues and burden of each Issue was separate. He has, therefore, prayed that for proper determination of the controversy involved in the case, Issue No.3 ought to have been split and two separate Issues should have been framed. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Santlal v. Harbans Singh, 1972 RLW 657 and Smt. Homat Dinshaw Irani v. Tehmatan, 1994 (1) Cur Civ Cas