Hon’ble Het Singh Yadav, J.—This SCC revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short the Act) has been preferred against the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the Small Causes Court (in short SCC)/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Etawah in SCC Suit No. 10 of 2011, whereby the application of the revisionists/defendants purported to have been moved under Order XIV Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure (in short the C.P.C.) for framing additional issues was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.

3. The moot question that falls for determination in this revision is-whether the provisions of Order XIV of the C.P.C. can be invoked for application by the Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of small causes under ‘the Act’ and secondly that the framing of additional issues in the instant case, as proposed by the defendants/revisionists was necessary for determining the matter at issue between the parties?

4. The question arises in the following back drop:

The opposite party/plaintiff, to begin with, instituted the suit in question for recovery of rent and ejectment in the Court below against the defendants/revisionists, inter alia, on the ground of default of payment. The defendants entered appearance by filing their joint written-statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed in all nine issues. The defendants, however, moved an application seeking amendment in their joint written statement. The Court below allowed the application and as a consequence the written statement came to be amended. The plaintiff also filed his additional pleading, by way of replica. The defendants, thereafter, moved Application No. 58-C purported to be under Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. praying therein that in view of amended pleadings, following additional issues were rendered necessary to be framed for determining the matter in controversy between the parties :

(i) Whether the defendants are in possession of the shop in question as tenants?

(ii) Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence? And;

(iii) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice?

5. The Court below in its discretion rejected the application observing that the issues already framed extend its coverage to the proposed issues, and therefore, additional issues were not required to be framed. If need be, points necessary for determination would be framed at the time of judgment and further that framing of issues was also not necessary in SCC suit.

6. The learned counsel for the revisionists made a bid to assail the impugned order both on factual as well as legal grounds. It is contended that framing of proposed additional issues will not prejudice either of the parties, and that rather, the points for determination would be more specific and would help adducing evidence and further determining the matter in controversy finally. Learned counsel laid stress submitting that Rule 4 (1) of Order XX C.P.C. clearly provides that the judgment of Court of small causes shall contain points for determination and decision thereon; that the provisions of Order XIV C.P.C. shall also extend to the Courts constituted under ‘the Act’ and that the points for determination is nothing but the issues as contemplated under Rule 1 and 3 of Order XIV C.P.C. The Court below, it is argued, was under legal obligation to frame the proposed additional issues as embodied in Rule 5 of the Order XIV C.P.C. Thus, it is submitted, the order impugned herein is impaired and runs against the established principles of law and justice, and accordingly, deserves to be set aside. He further argued that the Court below may be directed to allow the application 58-C and to frame additional issues on such term as it thinks fit.

7. To bolster his above submissions learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda, 1993 (1) ARC 249 and following