2025:HHC:24068 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.15 of 2023 Reserved on: 16.07.2025 Decided on: 24.07.2025 Ranjeet Kaur & others … Petitioners Versus Amardeep & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : M/s Mohit Jaitak and Kunal Mehta, Advocates (through Video Conferencing) and M/s Nipun thakur and Abhishek Nagta, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 23.05.2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P., in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners under Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, for framing additional Issues was dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land and building measuring 0-01-42 Hects being 1/ 3rd share out of land measuring 0-0426 Hects baring khewat No.428, khatouni No.437, khasra No.1349 as entered in jamabandi for the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24068 year 2005-2006, situated in Village Partap Nagar (Amb), Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs being successors of Hardeep Singh, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and mutation No.822, dated 7-7-2009 on the basis of some alleged relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.1, dated 15-11-2008 is wrong, illegal, null and void and is ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiffs and for issuance of permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendant from ousting the plaintiffs from joint possession, alienating or encumbering the suit land for recovery of Rs.200/- or whatever sum the court adjudges after rendition of account. 3. The suit as filed in the year 2014. Written statement was also filed in the month of October 2014. On 18.11.2021, an application was filed by the plaintiffs for recasting of Issues as additional Issues in terms of the pleadings of the parties. It was mentioned in the application that the case of plaintiff Ranjeet Kaur was that her husband had purchased a suit land and constructed a building over the same form his own pocket and had procured Bajaj Auto Scooter Agency and also set up a Work Shop and he had also constructed the first floor and leased the same to Punjab Technical University and further, that on another portion a Bank was running its business and the same was fetching Rs.60,000/- per month as 3 2025:HHC:24068 rent and at the relevant time defendant No.1 was just a student and unemployed. In the light of the pleadings of the parties there was a necessity of framing certain additional Issues which were borne out from the pleadings. It was further mentioned in the application that the Court due to inadvertence did not frame the said Issues at the time of framing of the issues and as the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence and as the original counsel of the plaintiffs had died during COVID-19 Pandemic which led to her engaging another counsel who read the Issues and thereafter filed the application for framing of additional issues, the application be allowed and additional issues be framed. 4. The application was resisted by the non-applicants/ defendants by stating therein that the evidence of both the parties stood recorded and the Issues which were necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the case stood framed by the Court in the presence of the parties as well as their respective counsel and no case was made out for framing of the additional Issues. In terms of the impugned order, this application was dismissed by learned Court below in the following terms:- “His order shall dispose of an application under order 14 rue 5 for framing additional three issues mentioned in the application it is alleged in the application that these important issues with regard to the "building and relinquishment deed has 4 2025:HHC:24068 not been framed inadvertently. Heard. Record perused. I am of the opinion that the issue No. 1 and 2 already framed is comprehensive enough to cover the additional issues No. 1) and (1) sought to be framed by filling such petition framing of such additional issues Additional issue No (iii) sought to be framed is not necessary in view of pleadings of parties. Thus, no prejudice shall be caused to applicant if the prayer is not allowed At this stage of final stage of respondent/defendant's evidence, the fact that framing additional three issues mentioned in the application are neither necessary nor material in view of pleadings of parties. Moreover, both the parties were clearly aware of their own cases and the respective cases set up by the opposite parties. Therefore at this belated stage of trial there is no requirement for framing of any additional issue. Furthermore, Issues were framed in presence of learned counsel for the parties and at that time no prayer or objection qua any issue was raised nor any other additional issue was pressed by any of the parties Both parties did not make any grievance regarding improper framing of issues at any stage whereas the parties also have almost led in evidence and case is fixed for concluding documentary evidence of defendant after adducing oral evidence. Applicant is also estopped by conduct to claim/raise additional issues at this belated stage. In view of these observations and findings, application of the applicant is rejected. Be tagged with the main case file after due registration.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very beginning submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the proposed additional Issues No.1 and 2, but as far as additional Issue No.3 is concerned, 5 2025:HHC:24068 learned Trial Court erred in holding that the same was not necessary in view of the pleadings of the parties. Learned Court below held that the framing of this Issue was necessary for the adjudication of the suit and this aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the learned Court below, more so for the reason that as it was the duty of learned Trial Court to frame the Issues, the parties cannot be made to suffer for the acts of omission of the Court. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that there was no infirmity in the order impugned and it was apparent and evident from the order that neither there was any due-diligence exercised by the petitioners nor the proposed additional Issue No.3 was necessary in the light of the pleadings of the parties. He also mentioned that it was correctly observed by the learned Court below that Issues were framed in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and at the relevant time no prayer or objection was raised for framing of any additional Issue. Accordingly, he prayed that the application was liable to be dismissed. 7. I have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents appended with the application as well as the impugned order. 8. The dispute is now confined to the framing of proposed 6 2025:HHC:24068 additional Issue No.3, which reads as under:- “Additional Issue:- Whether there is building with first floor existing over the suit land Rented out by deft. No.1 to different tenants for Rs.60,000/- per month and plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of decree for Rendition of account?OPP.” 9. Under Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as under:- “5. Power to amend and strike out, issues- (1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.” 10. Thus, in terms of this provision, the power to amendment strike the issues can be exercised by the Court at any time before passing a decree on such terms as it deems fit for determining the matter in controversy between the parties. 11. The third additional Issue, non framing of which by learned Court below in terms of the impugned order has led to the filing of this petition has been quoted by me hereinabove. The issue is to the effect whether there was a building with first floor existing over the suit land rented out by defendant No.1 to different tenants 7 2025:HHC:24068 for Rs.60,000/- per month and whether the plaintiffs were entitled for the relief of decree of rendition of account. 12. A perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs demonstrates that there is no such pleading that a building with first floor existing over the suit land was rented by defendant No.1 to different tenants for an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month as rent and that the plaintiffs were entitled for the relief of decree for an addition of account. 13. Therefore, in the absence of any such pleading in the plaint, obviously no such Issue was framed by the learned Court below when the Issues were framed at the first instance. Though, in terms of Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has the power to amend and strike out the Issues at any stage on such terms as it deems fit, but then obviously additional Issues have to be framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the Courts cannot create any new case for either of the parties for framing of an Issue, alien to the pleadings. Thus, in the absence of any such pleading in the plaint that the defendants had let out first floor of the building constructed over the suit land to different tenants on rent for Rs.60,000/- per month and the plaintiffs were entitled for the relief of decree for an addition of account, no such additional Issue as was being prayed for by the petitioners could have been framed 8 2025:HHC:24068 and the order passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to frame this Issue cannot thus be faulted with. 14. Accordingly, in the light of above observations, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 24, 2025 (Rishi)