$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010417712026 + CM(M) 1950/2026, CM APPL. 59875/2026 & CM APPL. 59876/2026 MS LALITA RANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Mr. Ashish Joshi and Mr. Veer Pratap Singh, Advs. versus MS SEEMA BANSAL AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, Mr. Kaibalya Kumar Ojha and Ms. Dhruvi Sharma, Advs. for R-2 Mr.Om Swarup Kumar and Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advs. for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned trial court in “Lalita Rani v Seema Bansal and Ors” bearing 36 CS DJ ADJ 679/2022 whereby the learned trial court has, suo moto, framed an additional issue viz. “What is the true nature of the transaction between the parties? Onus of proof on parties.” 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has instituted the underlying civil suit seeking a decree of possession qua the suit property, a decree of injunction This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:24:47 restraining the respondents from creating third-party rights and a decree of declaration seeking declaration that the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc as null and void. 3. The learned trial court vide order dated 06.06.2024 framed three issues and noted that upon a perusal of the pleadings, there was no requirement of framing any other issues. Accordingly, the learned trial court posted the matter for arguments. 4. The matter was adjourned on two occasions, and was finally taken up on 02.08.2025, whereby the learned trial court noted that the learned predecessor presiding officer has framed three issues, and gave one last opportunity to the parties to address arguments. 5. The matter was taken up on 11.03.2026 whereby the learned trial court, in exercise of its powers, suo-moto framed an additional issue viz. “What is the true nature of the transaction between the parties? Onus of proof on parties” and directed the parties to lead evidence on the said issue as it couldn‟t be decided as a pure question of law. The framing of the additional issue has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on 06.06.2024, the learned Trial Court had categorically observed that there was no requirement for framing any further issues. It is further submitted that the same position continued on 02.08.2025, when the learned Trial Court noted that three issues had already been framed, without recording any requirement for framing an additional issue. Thus, it is evident that considering the facts at hand, the issues had been framed and was posted for hearing. 7. He has further submitted that without first recalling the order dated 06.06.2024 to the extent that it notes that there is no requirement of framing This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:24:47 an additional issue, the learned trial court has erred in exercising their powers and framing an additional issue, especially without any application by either parties seeking the same. 8. This Court is of the opinion that merely because either of the parties has not filed an application seeking framing of an additional issue does not leave the learned trial court bereft of powers to frame an issue, especially, if the court is of the opinion that it will help in effective adjudication of the case. 9. It is pertinent to note that Order XIV Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers a wide discretionary power with the learned trial court to frame additional issues, up till the time of pronouncement of decree, to adjudicate the underlying controversy. The rationale behind this wide discretionary power is that the learned trial court seized of the details of the matter is the best authority to understand the nuances and intricacies of the case and chart the best course for adjudication of a dispute. The same has been upheld by a coordinate bench of this Court in East Point Education Society & Anr. v Mohinder Singh & Ors. CRP 173/2024. 10. In the present case, there is no dispute with respect to the suo-moto power of the trial court to frame an additional issue. The only dispute that remains is with respect to framing an additional issue without formally recalling a part of the earlier order dated 06.06.2024. 11. This Court is of the opinion that such an argument, in face of the wide discretionary powers under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, is misconceived. Merely not recalling a non-operative observation, made by the predecessor presiding officer, that too in an earlier order, cannot be a bar or estop the learned trial court from framing an additional issue, which in its opinion will This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:24:47 assist the court in effectively adjudicating the case. 12. Furthermore, the learned trial court while framing the additional issue has put the onus of proof on both parties thereby allowing both parties to lead evidence for the same. Resultantly, while the order does not preclude the petitioner from leading evidence, it also does not impose a unilateral burden of proof and thus, there will be no prejudice caused to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications, if any, are dismissed. AJAY DIGPAUL, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/ar/sg This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:24:47