[2026:RJ-JD:12046]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6606/2024 Pramood Jain S/o Shri Lal Chand Jain, Aged About 62 Years, Padam Printing Press, Near Kapda Market, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Sunder Lal Jain (Pahadiya), Bycaste Jain, R/o Didwana Road, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shridhar Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

12/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kuchaman City, Merta Judgeship, District Nagaur in Civil Original Suit No. 47/2021 (Vijay Kumar vs. Pramod Jain), whereby the application submitted by the petitioner– defendant under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for framing additional issues, has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application, as certain material questions arising from the pleadings of the parties required adjudication. It is contended that the additional issues proposed by the petitioner were necessary for proper and effective determination of the dispute involved in the suit. It is further submitted that the application for framing additional issues was filed at the stage of the plaintiff’s evidence and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties.

4. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC

490

5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial court had already framed issues on 18.04.2023 after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties. It is further contended that the issues sought to be introduced by the petitioner are substantially covered by the issues already framed and the application has been moved only with an intention to delay the proceedings.

7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial court undertook a comparative analysis of the issues already framed and the additional issues proposed by the petitioner. Upon such examination, the trial court recorded a categorical finding that the proposed issues are either already encompassed within the issues framed earlier or do not arise from the pleadings of the parties.

9. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia & Ors. (supra) lays down the principle that a court may frame additional issues if such issues are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. However, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts, as in the present case the trial court has found that the dispute arising from the pleadings is already sufficiently covered by the issues previously framed and the proposed issues do not raise any new or independent question requiring separate adjudication.

10. It is well settled that although the court possesses the power under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code to amend or frame additional issues at any stage of the proceedings, such power is to be exercised only when the proposed issues are essential for effectively determining the real controversy between the parties. Where the issues already framed adequately address the controversy emerging from the pleadings, framing of additional issues would be unnecessary.

11. In the present case, the trial court has assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons while rejecting the application and has rightly concluded that the proposed issues