This is a revision filed under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order rejecting an application made by the applicant for framing additional issues in the case. The facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows :

The plaintiff respondent Ladha Ram and Co. filed a suit no. 21 of 1971 in the court of the 2nd Civil Judge, Meerut for a decree for Rs. 1,30,000/- against the defendant applicants. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants applicants. Thereafter almost after three years of the filing of the written

statement an application was made for the amendment of the written statement. The proposed amendments were for deletion of paragraphs 25 and 26 and for substitution of new paragraphs 25 and 26. The trial court rejected the application of the defendants applicants for amendment. On the ground that the defendants applicants wanted to resile from the admissions made by them earlier and that the application for amendment was not a bona fide one. Against the decision of the trial court rejecting the amendment application Civil Revn. No. 1004 of 1974 (All) was filed by the applicants. The said revision was decided by M. P. Saxena, J. on 8th August 1975. This court held that the amendment was rightly rejected by the trial court and hence the revision was dismissed. Against the order dated 8th August 1975 the defendants applicants filed special leave in the Hon ble the Supreme Court of India which was granted. The case was thereafter heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its judgment dated 23rd September 1976 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of this court. The Supreme Court held that it is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paragraphs Nos. 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement and if such amendments are allowed the plaintiff respondent will be irretrivably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants applicants. The judgment is reported in AIR 1977 SC 680.

2-3. In the judgment, however, the Supreme Court made an observation to the effect that two alternative pleas of the defendants applicants as alleged in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement are there and the parties will be able to make their rival contentions on the pleadings as to the issues to be raised. The Supreme Court further observed that it will be open to the defendants applicants to apply for the framing of the issues and they will be at liberty to do so.

4. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court the defendant applicants again started a second inning for obstructing the progress of the suit. When the case was taken up by the trial court an application was now made for framing five additional issues in the case. On the reading of the issues sought to be framed it is clear that an attempt was again made to raise the same questions which were sought to be raised by the amendment in the written statement which was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court. By this device the defendant applicants wanted to again reopen the matter which had been finally concluded by the Supreme Court. In any case the trial court considered the matter in great detail and came to the conclusion that the five additional issues which were sought to be framed now did not arise and as such the application for framing additional issues was rejected. It may be stated here that after the written statement was filed by the defendants applicants the court on 23rd August 1972 had framed issues on the basis of the original paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement. The court had framed 12 issues in the presence of the court for the defendants applicants and it was accepted by him at that time that no other issue arises. During the pendency of the suit the statement of Ladha R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document