The power of the trial court under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC to frame, amend, or strike out issues is discretionary and intended for the proper determination of real controversies; an appellate or supervisory court will not interfere if the existing issues allow parties to lead evidence and adjudicate the dispute.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the learned 12th District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. A/114/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioners /plaintiffs under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. They are prosecuting a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction over the suit lands of Schedule A, B and C annexed with the plaint situated at village Dhamni, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur, and village Sambalpuri Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur. The claim of the plaintiffs is that they are entitled for a decree of declaration of their 1/11th share over the suit property of Schedule A and C annexed with the plaint, declaring the will deed dated 22.09.2005, is null and void and also for a declaration that the land alienated by the respective parties shall be adjusted in their respective shares and also for a permanent injunction. He would further submit that the parties are the legal heirs of common ancestor Ramadhar Samdariya and his wife Gajrabai. It is also pleaded in the plaint that Ramdhar Samdariya has executed an unregistered will on 22.09.2005 with respect to the suit property of Schedule B annexed with the plaint. However, Ramadhar was not the title holder of the said property of Schedule B. The suit property of Schedule A annexed with the plaint was inherited by him after death of his father Motiram Samdariya, and it was his ancestral property and except to the property of his own share, he was not competent to execute a will with respect to the property of Schedule-C, which was owned by his sons. The plaintiffs has challenged the execution of the said will deed dated 22.09.2005.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the defendants have filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments and pleaded about various instances of the acquisition of the family properties, family arrangements and partition of the property, they also averred about the execution of the will with respect to the suit property of Schedule B of the plaint.

5. Considering the dispute between the parties and their respective pleadings, the learned trial Court has framed issues with respect to the entailment of the properties by the respective parties, however, there was no issued framed by the learned trial Court with respect to the prayer made in the plaint about declaring the will deed dated 22.09.2005 as null and void, therefore, the plaintiff have filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C PC for framing the additional issue. The said additional issue is necessary to be framed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, and in the absence thereof, the parties may prevent for leading their evidence, yet the learned trial Court, instead of framing an additional issue, rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs. He would further submits that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if such issue was framed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the application may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside by allowing the writ petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material annexed with the writ petition.

7. The claim in the present writ petition for a direction to the learned trial Court to frame an additional issue with respect to the relief of the plaintiffs for declaring the will deed da