JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide which application for recasting of issues as per pleadings of the parties and for directing the defendants to lead their evidence first as per onus on proposed issues was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is continuing to be the director of respondent No. 1 and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property.

3. In the written statement, defendants have raised objections that the plaintiff was removed from the office in the meeting of shareholders held on 24.06.2006. Necessary intimation regarding removal of the plaintiff from the office of directorship of the company/defendant No. 1 was also filed with the Registrar of Companies on 27.02.2006. Defendants relied upon Annexures A1 to A20. Plaintiff denied the stand of the defendants in his replication.

4. The factum of plaintiff being Director of defendant No. 1 upto 24.06.2006 was admitted. However, defendants alleged that the plaintiff was removed from the office in the meeting held on 24.02.2006. Initial issues were framed on 25.01.2017 to the following effect:-

"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

5. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

7. Relief."

5. Petitioner claimed that while framing the aforesaid issues, the trial Court has omitted to frame material issues arising out of pleadings of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that onus to prove the alleged removal by way of following proper procedure was on the defendants. Plaintiff was admitted to be a Director and that entitles him to declaration and injunction unless his alleged removal is found to be on legal parameters. No issue has been framed in respect of removal of the plaintiff from the office of directorship of the company that whether the same was on account of legal parameters or otherwise.

6. Petitioner claimed recasting of issues in the following manner:-

"a) Whether the plaintiff has been removed from the office of Directorship by the share holders of defendant No. 1 as alleged by the defendants in para No. 1 on merits at page No. 5 of the written statement? OPD

b) Whether defendants are maintaining regular books of account, minutes books and resolution? OPD

c) Whether the defendants have passed the resolutions as mentioned in the written statement? OPD

d) Whether the defendants No. 2 and 3 have repaid the alleged loans to PSIDC as alleged by them in the written statement? OPD

e) Whether the defendants had sold the property of the defendant No. 1 as mentioned in para No. 7 of the written statement and for what price and what are the accounts therefor? OPD

f) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

g) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

h) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

i) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

j) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

k) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

l) Relief."

7. Since the claim of the plaintiff is dependent upon removal of the plaintiff from the post of Director by way of legal or illegal procedure, therefore, the issue on being re-framed would obligate the defendants to lead evidence prior in point of time then the plaintiff, as the entire case would be dep