JUDGMENT :

The petitioner herein is defendant in O.S.No.369 of 2016 on the file of IX Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. He has moved a petition before the trial Court under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. with a request to frame additional issues in the above referred suit. However, his application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 28-09-2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India on the following grounds:

1. The trial Court ought to have appreciated the pleadings and request of the petitioner/defendant who sought for framing additional issues, since it would assist the Court in adjudicating the real dispute between the parties.

2. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that, sometimes in a suit of this kind, a situation/circumstance may demand to allow such applications for framing of the additional issues, which if not passed may occasion failure of justice and would defeat the very purpose of making such application.

3. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that, there was a specific plea taken even in the written statements more specifically in Para No.9 on the importance of the additional issues that were being insisted to be allowed.

4. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that, the additional issues sought to be framed through this application are different to the issues already framed in the main suit and these additional issues are more important in adjudicating the suit.

5. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that, no prejudice would have caused to plaintiff in the suit even if the application for additional issued was allowed since they are not unnecessary issues.

6. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that, there was an allegation of forgery, hand loan raised with one K.Sudhakar, possession of money lenders license as the plaintiff in the suit is a professional money lender.

7. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that, the issues that were framed on 03-08-2018 were not comprehensive in nature and are not complete enough for adjudicating the suit in a fair manner.

8. The trial Court ought to have appreciated that, if the additional issues are not framed in the present suit, it would only lead to a prejudicial order instead of issuing justice to the parties.

2. As could be seen from the order in I.A.No.98 of 2021, it seems the petitioner has filed the petition with a request to frame additional issues on the basis of averments made by him in the written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has claimed that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.369 of 2016 for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- on the basis of documents which were already marked as Exs.A1 to A8. The petitioner having denied the claim of respondent, took a specific plea in the written statement that respondent/plaintiff, who was already examined as PW.1 is a professional money lender. The petitioner has further claimed that in view of the provisions of Telangana Money Lender’s Act (A.P. Telangana Area Money Lenders Act) when a defence is taken with regard to money transaction, the Court has to frame an issue relating to the possession of money lenders license under the Money Lenders Act. He has also taken a plea that the signatures on the suit documents were forged and they were not supported by consideration and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of K.Sudhakar. The petitioner claims that in view of the above specific stand, the Court ought to have framed relevant issues but only two issues as detailed below were framed.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

3. Therefore, the petitioner sought for framing of additional issues with regard to possession of money lenders license by the respondent/plaintiff, the plea taken by him with regard to forgery, consideration of the suit document and also non-joinder of necessary par