1 2025:CGHC:53474 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 952 of 2025 Lochan Singh Thakur S/o Bhagwan Singh Thakur Aged About 56 Years R/o Near Bus Stand Devkar, Tahsil Devkar, District Bemetara C.G. ... Petitioner versus Chetan Jain S/o Bhawarlal Jain Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Bija, Post Devbija, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Diwedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 31/10/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2025 by the learned Principal District Judge, Bemetara by which, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short CPC) filed by the petitioner, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2 respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement to sale executed between the respondent/plaintiff and petitioner/defendant on 04.1.2022. He submits that prior to this, another agreement was also executed and the written statement was filed and thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed six issues however, it has not framed issues as per pleadings in the writ petition. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has also not framed issue with regard to readiness and willingness, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the issues which have been proposed in the application under order 14 Rules 5 of CPC may be allowed to be framed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes and submits that the learned trial Court, after due assessment of the pleadings, framed six issues and the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition could be looked into with the issues which have already been framed. He further submits that one of the issues with regard to limitation is proposed to be framed but as the plaintiff/respondent is seeking specific performance of contract of an agreement dated 04.01.2022 and the suit was filed within three years, therefore, there is no necessity to frame the said issue. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The impugned order indicates that the defendant has proposed 5 additional issues apart from the issues, which have already been 3 framed. The learned trial Court has categorically held that the issues which are proposed by the defendant could be looked into with the issues which have already been framed. So far as the readiness and willingness are concerned, the submission of Mr. Pali, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to framing of issues has not been proposed in his application. 6. So far as framing of issue with regard to limitation is concerned, it has been observed that the suit was filed at the strength of an agreement to sale dated 04.01.2022, which appears to be prima facie within the limitation therefore, there is no necessity to frame the additional issues. 7. In view of the above this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasoning so given by the learned trial Court does not appear to be illegal or perverse. 8. Consequently, the instant writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the interim order stands discharged. All pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.06 18:01:39 +0530