IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 7234 of 2024 SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA Versus KAILASH CHAND AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Santosh Agrawal - learned Counsel for petitioner- defendant no.4.

Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil, learned Counsel for respondent No.1-

defendant No.3.

Shri Lokendra Singh Tomar and Shri Prateek Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for respondents No.4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11- plaintiffs.

Respondent No.7- plaintiff (deceased) has been deleted vide order dated 02-

09-2025.

ORDER The instant Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner- Defendant No.4, challenging the validity, legality, and propriety of the order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by 5th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morena in RCSA No.196 of 2017, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code for framing additional issues was rejected.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit before the Civil Court seeking a declaration and injunction, claiming ownership over a piece of land measuring 40X50 from land Survey No. 1356. In response, Defendant No. 3 filed a counterclaim, seeking to declare the sale deeds dated 08.01.2018 and

18.01.2018 as null and void, and made the petitioner, Defendant No. 4, a party to the proceedings.

3. Defendant No. 3 claimed that the plot in question, located in the New Housing Board Colony, Morena, was allotted to him by Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, and he was in possession of the disputed land.

4. Defendant No. 4, the petitioner, contested these claims, asserting that the plot in dispute was part of Survey No. 1356 Min 6 at Jorakhurd, and it had been purchased by various individuals, including predecessors of Defendant No. 4, through a registered sale deed dated 17.11.1989. Defendant No. 4 further asserted that he had constructed a house on the land after obtaining permission from municipal authorities, and the land was not subject to acquisition.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, requesting the framing of additional issues, particularly with respect to the petitioner's possession of the land and the validity of the sale deed dated 17.11.1989. The petitioner pleaded that the suit was not maintainable without addressing these issues.

6. The learned trial court, after considering the application, rejected it by order dated 19.11.2024, holding that the issues framed in the suit already covered the points raised by the petitioner in his application. The trial court further observed that the facts regarding the petitioner's possession and validity of the sale deed could be addressed within the existing issues. Hence, this petition.

7. Challenging the impugned order passed by the trial court, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner, Defendant No. 4, that the learned trial court has failed to recognize that the facts in issue are crucial for deciding the counterclaim. Specifically, the petitioner contends that Defendant No. 3, who claims to be in possession of the land, is not entitled to the relief of declaration without first establishing his possession, as per the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The petitioner further argues that the learned trial court has erroneously dismissed the request for additional issues, which would have allowed the petitioner to present evidence regarding his possession and the prior sale deed. It is also contended that the issues framed by the trial court are insufficient to adjudicate the counterclaim effectively, and the failure to frame additional issues would result in a miscarriage of justice. Hence, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs opposed the petition and supported the order passed by the learned trial court. It is argue