2025:UHC:6024 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2625/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik and Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for respondent-caveator. 2. Petitioners are defendants in an eviction suit filed by respondent, which was numbered as Original Suit No. 122 of 2017. 3. The plaintiff in the suit had claimed that he is owner of the house in question and defendants to the suit (petitioners herein) are trespassers on his property. The eviction suit was decreed by learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 15.09.2023. 4. Petitioners filed appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. While the appeal was in final stage of hearing, petitioner moved an application to frame following two additional issues: (i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the defendants (petitioners herein) have perfected their title by adverse possession? 5. Learned Appellate Court rejected the prayer for framing additional issues, vide order dated 03.09.2024. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court. 2025:UHC:6024 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that additional issues can be framed under Order 41 Rule 25 and 27 CPC, therefore, learned Appellate Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submits that petitioners, as defendants in the suit had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, but Trial Court rejected their application for rejection of plaint. 8. He further submits that Trial Court framed issue no. 3 on the question of limitation which was decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. He thus submits that petitioners cannot be permitted to rake up the same issue again and again. 9. He further submits that the plea of adverse possession cannot be taken at the appellate stage, especially when the defendants (petitioners herein) had neither filed counterclaim nor had requested for framing such an issue before the Trial Court. 10. He submits that the new issue, if permitted to be framed, will change the nature of the suit, thus, the Appellate Court rightly rejected the application made by petitioners. 11. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the 2025:UHC:6024 respondent. Although Order 41 Rule 25 and 27 CPC enables the Court to frame additional issues at the appellate stage; however, the said provision does not create a right in favour of a party to the proceedings, to have such issues framed. 12. Learned Court below has given valid reasons for rejecting the application. This Court concurs with the reasoning given by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 13. Thus, there is no scope for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 11.07.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f0 31a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC46 26D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.07.14 11:34:36 +05'30'