Judgment :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent before the Court of learned Sub-Judge (Additional Special Mobile Magistrate), Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) for ejectment of the petitioner from a shop situate at Gole Market, Udhampur. For facility of reference, the petitioner and the respondent in this petition shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘defendant’ and the ‘plaintiff’ respectively. The defendant is aggrieved by an order dated 09.09.2017 whereby the part statement of the plaintiff through his counsel under Order 10 of CPC has been recorded as also order dated 17.01.2018 whereby the issues have been framed by the learned trial Court. The defendant is also aggrieved of order dated 21.08.2018 whereby the application for reframing of issues filed by the defendant has been dismissed by the trial Court.

2. All the three orders aforesaid are neither appealable, nor revisable under the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, in lieu thereof, the petitioner has invoked the power of superintendence of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. Before dealing with the specific challenge taken by the petitioner to the impugned orders, it is appropriate to notice few facts which are material for the disposal of this petition.

4. A suit for ejectment of the defendant filed by the plaintiff is subjudice in the trial Court. The plaintiff has sought the eviction of the defendant on the solitary ground of personal necessity. There is no relief sought with regard to the arrears of rent qua the suit shop, though it is claimed by the plaintiff that the suit shop was initially rented out to the defendant w.e.f 01.08.2006 on the monthly rent of Rs.900/- which was subsequently enhanced mutually by the parties to Rs.2000 per month. This claim of the plaintiff is denied by the defendant, who has claimed and pleaded in his written statement that initially, the monthly rental of the suit shop was Rs.650/- per month which was later on enhanced to Rs.900 per month. This fact is witnessed by a compromise deed executed by the parties. The defendant has also denied that the suit shop is required by the plaintiff for any bonafide personal use and occupation.

5. After the filing of the written statement, it seems that the trial Court directed the parties to appear for recording of their statements under Order 10 CPC. The part statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 05.08.2017 and the matter was fixed for 09.09.2017. On 09.09.2017, the trial Court instead of recording the deferred statement of the plaintiff recorded the fresh statement of counsel for the plaintiff. The objection raised by the defendant against the recording of the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff was, however, turned down by the trial Court. The trial Court, after recording the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff as also of the defendant under Order 10 CPC, framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the suit shop is reasonably and bonafidely required by the plaintiff for his own use to start some business with the aid of his wife due to his disablement to augment his pensionary income to cope the needs of his family comprising of two sons and a daughter undergoing studies ? OPP

(ii) Whether the income of the defendant from the suit shop is the only source of livelihood for defendant and his family ? OPD

(iii) What will be the comparative advantages and this disadvantages of parties in case of eviction ? OP Parties

(iv) whether need of parties can be met by partial eviction ?

(v) Relief.

6. Thereafter the plaintiff was directed to lead his evidence. The defendant feeling dissatisfied with the framing of issues moved an application on 29.05.2018 purportedly under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking reframing of some of the issues. This application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2018 primarily on the ground that since the relationship of landlord and tena