J U D G M E N T

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 1st February, 2021 passed by the learned Trial Court in suit bearing CS-DJ-6668 of 2016.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff who had filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of Rs.46,44,496/- with interest. The petitioner was granted leave to defend the said suit. The petitioner thereafter filed a written statement-cum- counter claim for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as loss of revenue on account of delay and Rs.42,81,600.65 plus Rs.22,00,000/- as costs and freight charges.

3. The replication and response to the counter claim was filed by the respondent, whereafter on 29th July, 2019, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for balance amount of Rs.35,36,088/- as certified by M/s Jones Lang Lasalle and Project Management Consultants (PMC) of defendant? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for 5% retention money as certified by PMC of defendant? OPP

4. Whether defendant/counter claimant is entitled for Rs.50 lac as compensation for delay in execution work by the plaintiff?

OPD

5. Whether defendant/counter claimant is entitled for cost of recovery of imported lighting fixtures, installation thereof to the tune of Rs.42,81,600/- plus duty and freight charges of Rs.22 lac as prayed? OPD

6. Whether defendant is not liable for amount certified by its PMC as it was beyond power and authority of PMC? OPD

7. Whether counter claim is barred by limitation? Onus on the parties

8. Relief.”

Subsequently, thereto, the respondent filed an application for framing of an additional issue. Vide the impugned order dated 1st February, 2021, the learned Trial Court allowed the said application and framed an additional issue to the following effect:

“1A. Whether the Written Statement-cum-Counter Claim has been signed, verified and filed/instituted by the Competent Person? OPD”

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and the framing of the additional issue.

5. Ms. Diya Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that keeping in view the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Vs. Devender Kumar and others, 2019 SCC Online Del 8782 and Kawal Sachdeva Vs. Madhu Bala Rana & others, 2013 SCC Online Del 1479, it was not necessary that on every pleading, an issue should be framed. Learned counsel has further submitted that an issue could be framed only on material proposition of facts or law and that unnecessary issues were only delaying tactics and framing of such issues must be abjured by the court.

6. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, (2006) 1 SCC 75 and United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, (1996) 6 SCC 660, has further submitted that the issue of signing and verification of pleadings were not more than curable irregularities, if they were not properly carried out. It was further submitted that though the original written statement-cum-counter claim filed on behalf of the petitioner had not been signed, but subsequently, the signed written statement-cum-counter claim had been filed and duly accepted on record by the learned Trial Court, particularly, in the light of the order dated 1st April, 2019, whereby, the learned Trial Court had affirmed that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the court had come to the conclusion that the written statement-cum-counter claim had been duly signed and verified, there was no purpose at all in framing the additional issue regarding the competency of the person signing and verifying the pleadings. Thus, it was submitted that the petition be allowed and the additional issue framed be struck off.

7. On the other