Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51948 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1136 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rama Kant Tiwari (Since Deceased) And 6 Others Respondent :- Smt. Savitri Devi Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Ranjit Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents. 2. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been laid to the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.21, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Appeal No.57 of 2018, whereby the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of two additional issues, at the appellate stage, stands rejected. 3. Facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs-respondents had filed Original Suit No.1393 of 1998 for permanent injunction against the defendants-petitioners. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioners filed their written statement, wherein in paragraphs 1 and 2, it was categorically averred that initial partition has taken between the parties, and they are in possession of Arazi No.298, 299 and 300 along with which, a boundary wall has been constructed. In para 5, it was stated that there is no Arazi No.300/2 on site. 4. Further, in para 13 of the additional pleas, it was stated that after the partition had taken place, the parties are in possession of their respective areas. The trial Court had framed the following issues:- "1. क्यया वयाददी प्रश्नगत आरयाजदी ससंख्यया 299 एवसं 300/2 ससस्थित ममौजया अहहिरसंवया परगनया व जजलया कयानपपुर नगर कया एकल ससंक्रमणदीय भभूहमधर व कयाहबिज दखदील हिह? 2. क्यया वयाद कया मभूल्ययासंकन कम हकयया गयया हिह? 3. क्यया प्रदत्त न्ययायशपुल्क अपययार्याप्त हिह? 4. वयाहदनदी हकस अनपुततोष कतो प्रयाप्त करनने ककी अजधकयाररणदी हिह? 5. क्यया वयाहदनदी कतो वयाद कयारण उत्पन्न हिहआ? 6. क्यया वयाददी कने कस्थिनयानपुसयार , प्रहतवयाददी दयारया हववयाहदत सम्पजत्त कने जपुज भयाग पर दमौरयान वयाद हनमयार्याण हकयया गयया? यहद हियाहाँ ततो प्रभयाव? 7. क्यया वयाददी जररयने आदनेशयात्मक हनषनेधयाजया प्रहतवयाददी दयारया दमौरयान वयाद हकयने गयने हनमयार्याण कतो हिटवयानने कया हिकदयार हिह?" 5. Issue no.1 was in regard to the fact as to whether the plaintiffs were the bhumidhar with transferable right and in possession of Arazi No.299 and 300/2. The said issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the documentary evidence as adduced by the plaintiffs clearly demonstrated that the name of the plaintiffs is recorded in the revenue records over the Arazi No.299 and 300/2. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 29.03.2018, against which, a Civil Appeal No.57 of 2018 was filed. In the said civil appeal, the petitioners have moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues which are as under:- "अ- क्यया वयादपत्र मम हववयाहदत आरयाजदी ससं० 300/2 ससस्थित गयाम अहहिरवयासं कयानपपुर नगर ककी सदीमयायम (चमौहिददी) असंहकत नया हितोनने सने वयादगसत सम्पजत्त ककी पहिचयान सम्भव नहिहीं हिह तस्थिया वयाद आदनेश -7 हनयम 3 सदी०पदी०सदी० कने प्रयावधयाननों सने बियाजधत हिह ? बि- क्यया वयादपत्र मम वयाहदनदी दयारया बितयायया गयया हनमयार्याण हवशनेषतयया पपुजलस चमौककी अहहिरवयासं स्थियानया चकने रदी कयानपपुर नगर आरयाजदी ससं०-300/2 पर ससस्थित हिह यया आरयाजदी ससं०-300 पर ससस्थित हिह ?" 6. The Court below had rejected the said application, hence the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land could not be identified and there is no khasra number as 300/2 on spot, and the issues should have been framed at the trial stage itself. He however, submits that as the issue was not framed before the trial Court, the application was moved at the appellate stage so as to identify the property in dispute. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that once the admission is there in the written statement itself that oral partition had taken place and the petitioners are in possession of their respective plots, the application moved for the framing of additional issues is not maintainable. 9. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. It is well settled that the Court may frame additional issues at any stage to determine the real dispute between the parties. However, in the instant case, in the written statement filed by the petitioners, they have categorically admitted the fact that the oral partition had taken place in respect of the land in dispute and they were in possession on their share which is covered by the boundary wall. 11. The Court below had recorded categorical findings that thrice issues were framed, but no effort was made by the defendants to get the issues framed as to the identification of the property in dispute. The trial Court had specifically recorded findings to the effect that the plaintiffs had adduced documentary evidence to prove that he is the owner in possession over Arazi No.299 and 300/2. The defendants-petitioners could not adduce any evidence before the trial Court and DW-1 in his cross examination has accepted that he is illiterate and can only write his name, thus, the findings were recorded that the measurement was never taken in front of him. Once, the issue as to the ownership of the plot in dispute was decided by the trial Court and the defendants had made no effort to adduce any evidence or to get issue framed for the identification of the property, the application at the appellate stage is not maintainable, once the factual position is otherwise. 12. The findings recorded by the appellate Court needs no interference of this Court. 13. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 SK Goswami Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad