JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The revisionist herein is a defendant in a civil suit, being Suit No. 19 of 2017, Smt. Neelam Maini vs. Sachin Phul, as it was instituted before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri.

2. The suit thus instituted, the plaintiff has claimed for a grant of relief for specific performance of an agreement for sale in relation to the property, which was described in Para 1 of the plaint. During the pendency of the Suit, and after the exchange of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether agreement to sell dated 15.09.2016 was executed between the parties?

(ii) Whether the defendant has not complied with the conditions of the agreement to sell dated 15.09.2016?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit?

(iv) Whether the court fees paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?

(v) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Limitation Act?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief claimed?”

3. In the suit in question, the present revisionist had earlier filed an application, invoking the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, from the view point that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the suit for specific performance. The said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, as it was filed in the aforesaid, suit stood rejected; consequently, the matter had travelled before this Court at the behest of the present revisionist, in the earlier Civil Revision No. 44 of 2022, Sachin Phul vs. Neelam Maini, which was preferred along with other connected civil revisions.

4. When the revision was considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court and adjudicated by the judgment dated 15.06.2023, the coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order from the perspective, that all the revisions were disposed of together with a direction to the lower Court to rehear the final argument of the parties on the basis of the evidence as adduced by them upto that stage and the Court was required to decide the question of maintainability and the aspect of cause of action. Relevant Para 10 of the judgment dated 15.06.2023 is extracted hereunder:

“10. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist/defendant would submit that all the four revisions may be disposed of together with common order with direction to the lower court to rehear the final arguments of the parties on the basis of evidence already adduced before it including the issue that whether there was any cause of action to file the suits, if not, whether suits are maintainable in absence of cause of action. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has no objection to this.”

5. The expression extracted from Para 10, by the present revisionist as if it was to invoke provisions contained under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, for getting an issue framed, may not be a latitude or intention as interpreted by the revisionist’s counsel for the reason being, that a rationale meaning has to be given to the observations made in Para 10, where the coordinate Bench of this Court has observed, that the suit was to be reheard at final arguments on the basis of evidence already on record that means from that stage itself, and it further said before the issues including the issue pertaining to the maintainability and the absence of cause of action to be decided together while deciding issue Nos. 2 and 6.

6. On a holistic interpretation of this paragraph, it would be conclusively dealing with the aspect pertaining to the cause of action and maintainability too which was self included in issue Nos. 2 & 6. Para 10 in itself didn’t gave any latitude to either of the parties to the suit to get any other issue framed at the belated stage, because rehearing an appreciation of evidence was limited to the evidence already on record was confined to the issue already framed. The only dissection, which was made by the coordinate Bench of this Court was that the issue of mainta