ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.12.2022 partly allowing the petition in I.A.No.214 of 2020 in O.S.No.710 of 2015 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur filed by the plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. for recasting of issues.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit initially for permanent injunction seeking not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Later on, the plaint was amended and the reliefs for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction not to alienate were added.

3. Initially the following issues were framed.

“1. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit only to grab the property of the defendant .

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.”

4. Then, this petition was filed seeking additional issues which are stated as follows:

“1. Whether the sale deed obtained by the defendant dated 05.3.2018 bearing Doc.No.2446/2018 is valid and binding upon the plaintiff and it relates to plaint schedule property.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to alienate/transfer the property in pursuance of the sale deed 05.03.218 bearing Doc.No.2446/2018."

5. The petition was resisted by filing counter. After hearing both sides, the trial Court recast the issues as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4. To what relief ?”

6. Aggrieved by the order, this present petition is filed. In the order, the trial Court mentioned that originally two issues were framed, after filing of the written statement, as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff filed the suit only to grab the property of the defendant ?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

7. Since the copy of the issues originally framed are not placed before this Court, they are not known. It can be understood that since the suit was filed only for permanent injunction, issue initially could have been framed only with regard to permanent injunction not to interfere with the possession. Anyhow, later, when the additional issues are proposed as noted above, the trial Court recast the issues in its own words and not as suggested by the petitioner.

8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the issues, as they are recast, are not elaborative and so it would be difficult for the petitioner to lead evidence since the evidence shall be lead as per the issues.

9. In fact, the additional issues suggested by the plaintiff have two aspects viz., one is binding nature of the sale deed and the second one is whether the sale deed relates to plaint schedule property. Both these aspects are covered in prayer(b) which reads as follows:

“For declaration that the sale deed holding by the defendant dated 05.03.2018 bearing Doc.No.2446/2018 is null and void and not binding against the plaintiff as the said sale deed being concocted, fabricated with false location of the property and also its contents.”

10. Therefore, recast issue No.1 i.e., whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for encapsulates the entire form of declaration as it is sought. The only difference is that the Court framed the issue in a cryptic manner and whereas the plaintiff suggested the same in an elaborate manner as it is prayed in the plaint.

11. Similarly, second issue suggested by the plaintiff is also elaborative as sought in prayer (c) in the plaint, whereas the recast issue No.2 is cryptic, and covers the same.

12. In so far as the issue No.3 regarding limitation is concerned, it is already there in the issues framed after additional written statement. In fact there is no grievance of the petitioner for framing issue No.3.

13. Though the petition is filed to frame the additional issues, in the impugned order, trial Court stated that it is inclined to frame the following issues, meaning thereby