ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 23.11.2019 in I.A. No.619 of 2021 in O.S. No.204 of 2018, wherein and whereby, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing additional issue.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner/defendant raised the dispute about the title of the respondent/plaintiff, it is the bounden duty of the Court to frame issue and the Court below should have framed an issue regarding title, but the Court below has not framed the issue. When the petitioner/defendant filed an application for framing an additional issue, the Court below without considering the issue in proper perspective dismissed the same. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Jharkhand State Housing Board V. Didar Singh (2018 ALT (Rev) 218 (SC), Anathula Sudhakar V. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs., AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 and Venkata subbamma v. Praneshchari, 2004 (3) ALT 513. He also submits that the petitioner and the respondents are claiming the title through common vendor and both are claiming title basing on registered sale deeds, as such, the issue regarding title needs to be framed in the present suit.

3. On the other hand, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the Court below found that the claim made by the petitioner/defendant is in respect of different property and his claim is different with that of the property of the respondent/plaintiff, as such, there is no dispute regarding title of the plaint schedule property. He also submits that after giving such finding, the Court below has dismissed the application. He also submits that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application since in the present case, the respondent/plaintiff is claiming rights in respect of the house property identified by house numbers with boundaries and it is not an open plot and the same area is distinguishable on facts.

4. In this case, it is to be seen that the issues are framed by the court below on 25.07.2019 and present application is filed in the month of March, 2021 and a memo incorporating draft issues is filed on 17.08.2021 after filing of the said application. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant could have filed draft issues before framing issues by the court below, but that has not been done.

5. Para 15 of the impugned order reads as follows :

“15. As can be seen from the rival pleadings, the plaintiffs are claiming to be the owners and possessors of a house no plot No.5, in sy no.146 part of Nagaram village. That the petitioner/defendant is asserting rights in plot No. 92 and 127 out of sy.nos.146, 147 and 148 of Nagaram village. Therefore, the title setup by defendant is not for the property claimed as claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. The claim of the plaintiffs is in respect of a house in plot no.5 in Sy.No.146 part alone, whereas the defendant is asserting rights over plot numbers 92 and 126 that too out of Sy.No.146, 147 and 148. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can be said that the plaintiffs as well as defendant are fighting for one and the same property. While the property claimed by the plaintiff is a house and what is being claimed by the defendants is open plot, thus it cannot be said that there is title dispute between the parties in respect of the suit schedule property, which is house bearing no.12-48/8/1, on plot no.5. In simple, the plaintiffs are seeking for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the said schedule property on which no hand is laid by the defendants, therefore, there is no scope or the defendant to deny the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, therefore, there is no necessary for plaintiffs to seek declaration of title. Hence, there is no need to frame