The framing of specific issues based on the pleadings of the parties is essential for the effective adjudication of a suit, and the trial court has the authority to do so under Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. -

CM-15435-CII-2022

1. Application is allowed as prayed for. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record.

Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

Main case

2. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, whereby an application dated 03.09.2022, filed at the instance of petitioner-plaintiff, seeking re-framing/claiming of specific issues on the point of validity of the sale deeds in question, has been declined.

3. Facts leading to the present case are that respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for possession against the petitioner, based on sale deed dated 13.12.2010 (this shall be referred to as 'Ist suit'). In the plaint, it was stated that the sale deed dated 13.12.2010 was executed in favour of respondent No.1 by respondents No.2 and 3 based on their two sale deeds dated 01.09.2010 (vasika Nos.2104 and 2105). It was further stated that respondents No.2 and 3 purchased the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 01.09.2010 from the petitioner. In the written statement, petitioner took up the plea of fraud stating that the sale deed dated 01.09.2010 was got executed in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 fraudulently and was also bad for want of sale consideration. Issues in the Ist suit were framed on 27.05.2015. Relevant issue No.1 is reproduced hereunder for reference:-

'Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession over the suit property as prayed for? OPP"

4. In a separate but related development, the petitioner on being put to notice of the first suit, filed suit for declaration (herein after referred to as the 'IInd suit') challenging the two sale deeds dated 01.09.2010 (vasika Nos. 2104 and 2105) as well as 13.12.2010 (vasika No.3545), impleading all the respondents as defendants. Issues in the second suit were framed on 27.07.2015. Relevant issue No.1 in the IInd suit is reproduced hereunder for reference:-

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

5. During trial, an application dated 16.11.2016 came to be filed in the first suit at the instance of respondent No.1 for claiming a specific issue pertaining to the sale deeds in question, on the point of fraud. The issue sought to be claimed/incorporated at the instance of respondent No.1 in his application is reproduced hereunder:-

'If issue No.1 is proved whether the sale deeds vasika No. 2104 and 2105 dated 01.09.2010 are result of fraud or paper transactions and without consideration? OPP

6. The said application was declined by the trial court vide order dated 21.07.2017. However, as the property in question in both the suits was same, thus, both the suit were consolidated vide an order of even date i.e. 21.07.2017. While two suits after being consolidated were listed for final arguments, the petitioner moved an application dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure P-6 page 67) claiming a specific issue on the validity of sale deeds in question, for want of valuable consideration besides being hit by fraud/misrepresentation. It is the said prayer made by the petitioner, which has been declined by the trial court vide impugned order dated 03.10.2022, and the same has been challenged by way of present revision petition.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once a plea of fraud, besides, the sale deeds being invalid for want of sale consideration was raised in the plaint, a specific issue in this regard was required to be framed, so as to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in an effective manner. He further submits that the petitioner shall not press for grant of an opportunity to lead any evidence in case a specific issue in this regard is framed.

8. On the other hand, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner has been strongly opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 by submitting that the parties were f