SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J
R.Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
J.Santharaman – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CMP No.18330 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Nithysh Sekhar
For the Respondent: Mr.Y.Kajanavas

The court has the authority to frame or reframe issues in a case at any stage of the proceedings.

Headnote:The judgment discusses the statutory framework of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directing the Trial Court to frame issues about the disputed sale consideration. It highlights that the court has the authority to frame or reframe issues at any stage. The court concluded that the petitioners are entitled to have the specific issue framed regarding the agreed sale consideration dispute.

Table of Content
1. court's review of draft issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. authority to frame issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. final decision outcome. (Para 7)

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the draft issues filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on the ground that the issues in the suit were already framed on 03.03.2025.

2.It is seen from the typed set of papers that, after completion of pleadings, the suit was posted for hearing on 03.03.2025. On that day, the learned counsel for the first defendant filed draft issues, whereas the plaintiffs did not file any draft issues. Based on the draft issues submitted by the learned counsel for the first defendant, the Trial Court framed the following three issues on 03.03.2025 :

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for a sum of Rs.33,42,917/-

together with interest as prays for ?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the cost as prayed for ?

(3) To what other relief the parties are entitle too issues framed ?

3.In the next hearing date i.e., on 15.04.2025, the counsel for the petitioners filed draft issues and the same were returned by the Trial Court on the ground that the issues were already framed.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court has the power to frame or reframe issues at any stage of the proceedings and therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in returning the draft issues filed by the petitioner.

5.A reading of the pleadings of the parties would indicate that there exists a dispute with regard to the the sale consideration agreed between the parties. According to the averments made in the plaint, the agreed sale consideration was Rs.83,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.76,63,418 was stated to have been paid as advance. However, as per the written statement, the agreed sale consideration was only rs.56,63,418/-.

6.Thus, there is a clear dispute between the parties regarding the quantum of advance amount allegedly paid by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court has not framed any specific issue with regard to the said dispute. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to frame issues with regard to the dispute relating to the agreed sale consideration and the quantum of advance amount paid by the plaintiffs.

7.With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top