Point of Law: It is better that the members of the bar shall file draft issues before framing of issues by the Courts and filing of draft issues before framing of issues by the Courts, will assist the trial Court in deciding the lis as expeditiously as possible and will save some time.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Mantri Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.

2. Challenging the docket order dated 13.06.2022 in I.A.No.112 of 2022 in O.S.No.99 of 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahbubabad, this Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article - 227 of Constitution of India.

3. The dates play an important role in this case. The respondents herein - plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 have filed a suit vide O.S.No.99 of 2010 for declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The petitioners - defendants have filed written statement way back in the year 2011 itself. The Court below had framed issues on 02.09.2014. According to the revision petitioners, the Court below has not framed proper issue with regard to res judicata. In spite of specific plea in the written statement, no issue on the point of res judicata was framed. Therefore, the petitioners have filed a petition vide I.A.No.112 of 2022 in O.S.No.99 of 2010 to frame an additional issue with regard to res judicata. Vide impugned order dated 13.06.2022, the Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

4. Mr. Mantri Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the contents of the written statement, would submit that the petitioners herein - defendants have specifically pleaded in their written statement with regard to earlier round of litigation, vide O.S. No.24 of 1986 and further contended that the judgment and decree in O.S. No.24 of 1986 operate as res judicata to the proceedings in the present suit. In spite of specific pleading in the written statement, the Court below has not framed the issue with regard to res judicata. According to him, it is the duty of the Court to frame an appropriate issue on consideration of the pleadings. In the present case, the Court below failed to do so. There is substantial force in the said contention.

5. In view of the above, it is relevant to note that in paragraph No.17 of the written statement, there is a specific pleading with regard to res judicata. “The petitioners herein - defendants have specifically pleaded that in the previous suit, i.e., O.S.No.24 of 1986, an issue i.e., whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit house? If so, whether the defendant obtained the same on rent from the plaintiff”, was framed. The said issue had already been decided by the trial Court as “In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit house and he had no capacity to lease out it to the defendant”. The said finding has been confirmed by both the appellate Court as well as High Court.

6. In view of the above said issue framed and decided between the parties, the said judgment and decree operate res judicata to the present suit. Despite said pleading, the Court below has not framed the issue with regard to res judicata.

7. Considering the lis involved in the present revision and to decide the same, it is trite to note that Order - XIV of CPC deals with settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. The same is relevant to appreciate the case and it is extracted below:

“ORDER XIV OF CPC

Settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon

1. Framing of issues.- (1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.

(2) Material propositions arc those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.

(3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of distinct issue.

(4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law.

(5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements if any, and after examination under rule 2 of Order X and af