Trial courts are mandated to frame specific issues based on material propositions of fact and law asserted in pleadings. General issues covering broad reliefs are insufficient; failure to frame specific issues on contested material propositions constitutes a material illegality requiring judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. The present revision petition has been instituted by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners–plaintiffs seeking framing of additional issues has been dismissed.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the petitioners– plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, asserting themselves to be the bona fide purchasers for consideration of the suit property, bearing House No. 246-A, Model Town, Ludhiana, vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.02.2008. It was pleaded that the petitioners were in actual and physical possession of the property since the date of purchase. However, the petitioners discovered during a court file inspection on 12.08.2025 that respondent No.1 had obtained an ex-parte order dated 11.11.2014 from the Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-SDM Ludhiana West, whereby Mutation No. 35739 was sanctioned and the earlier mutation in favour of the petitioners was set aside without notice.

3. The petitioners subsequently sought an amendment of the plaint to specifically challenge the said ex-parte order as being illegal, null, and void, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2025. The amended plaint was thereafter filed on 03.12.2025.

4. The respondents–defendants, in their written statement to the amended plaint, asserted that the petitioners had full knowledge of the change in mutation and the earlier litigation. They further contended that the suit was barred by the law of res judicata, limitation, and Order II Rule 2 CPC.

5. Following the completion of amended pleadings, the petitioners–plaintiffs moved an application dated 10.02.2026 under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, seeking the framing of additional issues on the ground that the amended pleadings introduced new material propositions of fact and law regarding the legality of the ex-parte mutation order dated 11.11.2014.

6. The defendants opposed the said application, asserting that the extra issue sought to be framed was already encompassed within the existing declaration prayer and that the application was a tactic to delay the proceedings. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application on 20.02.2026, holding that the issue of declaration already framed was wide enough to cover the legality of the impugned order.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book and the material placed on record.

8. Following issues have been framed by the Trial Court from the original pleadings of the parties prior to the amendment of plaint:-

Issues of Civil Suit:-

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Court? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of res-judicata? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

6. Relief.

Issues of Counter Claim:-

1. Whether the counter claimant is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPCC

2. Whether the counter claimant is entitled for the relief of possession as prayed for? OPCC

3. Whether the counter claimant is entitled for the relief of mesne profits alongwith interest as prayed f