The Court cannot create new issues outside of pleadings when considering the necessity for additional issues in a case.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 23.05.2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P., in terms whereof, an H application filed by the petitioners under Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code , for framing additional Issues was dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land and building measuring 0-01-42 Hects being 1/ 3^rd share out of land measuring 0-0426 Hects baring khewat No.428, khatouni No.437, khasra No.1349 as entered in jamabandi for the year 2005-2006, situated in Village Partap Nagar (Amb), Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs being successors of Hardeep Singh, husband of plaintiff No.1. and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and mutation No.822, dated 7-7-2009 on the basis of some alleged relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.1, dated 15-11-2008 is wrong, illeogal, null and void and is ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiffs and for issuance of permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendant from oustingu the plaintiffs from joint possession, alienating or encumobering the suit land for recovery of Rs.200/- or whatever sum the court adjudges after rendition of account.

3. The suit as filed in the year 2014. Written statement was also fihled in the month of October 2014. On 18.11.2021, an application was filed by the plaintiffs for recasting of Issues as additional Issues in terms of the pleadings of the parties. It was mentioned in the application that the case of plaintiff Ranjeet Kaur was that her husband had purchased a suit land and constructed a building over the same form his own pocket and had procured Bajaj Auto Scooter Agency and also set up a Work Shop and he had also constructed the first floor and leased the same to Punjab Technical University and further, that on another portion a Bank was running its business and the same was fetching Rs.60,000/- per month as rent and at the relevant time defendant No.1 was just a student and unemployed. In the light of the pleadings of the parties there was a necessity of framing certain additional Issues which w.ere borne out from the pleadings. It was further mentioned in the application that the Court due to inadvertence did not frame the said Issues at the time of framing of the issues and aos the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence and as the original counsel of the plaintiffs had died during COVID-19 Pandemic which led to her engaging another counsel who read the Issuues and thereafter filed the application for framing of additionoal issues, the application be allowed and additional issues be framed.

4. The application was resisted by the non-applicants/ defendhants by stating therein that the evidence of both the parties stood recorded and the Issues which were necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the case stood framed by the Court in the presence of the parties as well as their respective counsel and no case was made out for framing of the additional Issues. In terms of the impugned order, this application was dismissed by learned Court below in the following terms:-

“His order shall dispose of an application under order 14 rue 5 for framing additional three issues mentioned in the application it is alleged in the application that these important issues with regard to the "building and relinquishment deed has not been framed inadvertently. Heard. Record perused.

I am of the opinion that the issue No. 1 and 2 alr