The court's decision emphasized the comprehensive nature of the existing issue to address the question of entitlement and title of the plaintiffs, including the date of death and its impact, and highlighted the parties' ability to address the question of date of death and its effect while leading evidence and addressing the court on merits.

Judgment

Sujoy Paul, J.;-

1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners/defendants have challenged the order dated 30.09.2011, whereby application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing additional issues is rejected by the court below. Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the plaint, the date of death of Narayan Prasad is shown as Samvat 2025, whereas in the written statement the date of death is disputed and it is alleged that the real date of death is Samvat 2010. He submits that the said date of death has relevance to decide whether the legal representatives are entitled for particular benefits and, therefore, the court below has erred in not framing the issues regarding date of death of the said person.

2. Shri Gupta criticized the order and stated that his application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC (Annexure P-4) should have been allowed by the court below. Shri Gupta submits that a pleading of plaint is specifically denied by the defendants and, therefore, as per Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC, the aforesaid issues should have been framed.

3. Per Contra, Shri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents, supported the order and submits that the issues raised by the petitioners can very well be looked into while deciding the existing issues. By placing reliance on AIR 1956 SC 593 [Nagubai Ammal and others Vs. B. Shama Rao and others] and 2004 (3) MPLJ 571 [Ganpat Rao Vs. Ashok Rao and others], Shri Sharma submits that the parties are aware of the real issues involved in the matter and, therefore, even otherwise they can lead evidence and assist the Court to determine the real question involved.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The court below has framed issue No. 1 as under:-

The issue No. 1 is very wide. This issue deals with the question of entitlement and title of the plaintiffs. The court below has given a reason that while deciding the issue No. 1, the question regarding applicability of Hindu Succession Act and rules made thereunder, date of death etc. can be adjudicated upon. The parties are already aware that one of the issue involved in the matter is the date of death of the said person. Thus, the court below has given a plausible reason. The parties while leading evidence and while addressing the Court on merits can always address on the question of date of death of the said person and effect of said date of death on the entitlement. In other words, while deciding issue No. 1 court below can very well decide the dispute of date of death and can also decide the rights arising out of a particular date of death. Thus, the court below has not committed any error in disallowing the application.

6. In Nagubai (supra), the Apex Court held that since parties are aware of the real issues involved in the matter even if an issue is not framed that will not vitiate the proceedings. The same view is taken by this Court in Ganpat Rao (Supra). There is no legal flaw in the order passed by the court below. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court is not obliged to examine the matter as an appellate court. In absence of any jurisdictional error, any serious procedural impropriety or perversity, no interference is warranted. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference. The court below has given a plausible reason while rejecting the application of the petitioner. I find no ingredient on which interference, under Article 227 of the Constitution, is warranted. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs.