1 CGHC010314552026 2026:CGHC:36433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1033 of 2026 1 - Naresh S/o Lakeshwar Aged About 45 Years By Caste- Teli, R/o - Village - Kurchundi, P C N - 43, R N M - Garhphuljhar, Post - Baroli, Thana - And Tahsil - Basna, Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Post Is Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Tuleshwar Sao S/o Shri Shankar Lal Sao, Aged About 65 Years By Caste - Teli, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village - Kurchundi, P C N - 43, Post - Baroli, Thana - And Tahsil - Basna, Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund, Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 2 14/08/2026 The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basna, District Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. 09-A/2024, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court, where the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has instituted a suit seeking declaration of title, vacant possession of the suit property and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No.184/2, admeasuring 0.0600 hectare, situated at Village Kurchundi, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund. 3. It is submitted that the plaintiff claims the suit property to be his self-acquired property, allegedly purchased by him from its erstwhile owner, namely, Bhikam, by a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2023. On the other hand, the specific case of defendant No.1 is that his residential house is situated over the land bearing Khasra No.184/2 (old Khasra No.134), admeasuring 0.223 hectare, and that the property has been in the possession of his family since the time of his ancestors. It is further his case that his father acquired the said property in a family partition effected in the year 1977. 4. He further submits that, despite the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has not framed specific issues concerning the 3 material questions in controversy, particularly as to whether the suit property is owned by the plaintiff; whether the plaintiff came into possession thereof pursuant to the alleged purchase; and whether defendant No.1 is in illegal possession/encroachment over 270 square metres of the suit property. It is contended that, in the absence of specific issues on these material questions, defendant No.1 apprehends that he may be precluded from properly leading evidence in support of his defence. It was, therefore, necessary for the learned trial Court to frame appropriate additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC. 5. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the proposed issues are already covered by Issues No. 2, 3 and 4 framed by it. According to learned counsel, Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC contemplates determination of the real controversy between the parties by framing appropriate and specific issues. The proposed issues, according to him, are necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the learned trial Court be directed to frame the additional issues proposed by defendant No.1. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the learned trial Court framed issues on 08.11.2024 which are as follows: 4 “01- D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe [kljk uacj 184@2 dqy jdck 0-0600 gsDVs;j fLFkr xzke dqjpqaMh iVokjh gYdk uacj 43 jktLo fujh{kd eaMy x<Qqy>j rglhy cluk ftyk egkleqan Hkwfe fodzsrk Hkh[ke firk ukjk;.k dh LokfeRo dh Hkwfe Fkh vkSj D;k og mDr oknHkwfe ij fodz; ds iwoZ dkfct Fkk\ 02- D;k okn Hkwfe oknh ds LokfeRo dh Hkwfe gS\ 03- D;k oknh oknHkwfe dks dz; djus ds mijkar ls ml ij dkfct Fkk\ 04- D;k izfroknh ujs’k mDr oknHkwfe ds 270 oxZehVj ij voS/k #i ls dkfct gS\ 05- D;koknh }kjk oknHkwfe ds laca/k esa djok;k x;k lhekadu fof/k fo#) gS\ 06- D;k oknh dk okn le;kof/k cká gS\ 07- D;k oknh }kjk okn dk fof/kor~ ewY;kadu dj mfpr U;k; ‘kqYd vnk fd;k gS\ 08- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\” 8. Thereafter, on 06.04.2026, defendant No.1 preferred an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC seeking framing of an additional issue, which reads as under: “4- ;g fd izfroknh }kjk izLrwr tokcnkok dh dafMdk 03]04]07]09]10 esa mfYyf[kr vfHkopu ds vk/kkj ij fuEukuqlkj okn iz’u fojfpr djokuk pkgrs gSA okn iz’u d- 06 & D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe ij izfroknh ,oa mlds iwoZt dk vkoklh; edku o”kZ 1977 ds iwoZ ls fufeZr gksus ls oknh oknxzLr Hkwfe ij LoRo ?kksf”kr djkus dk ,oa fjDr dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA” 5 9. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application by observing that the proposed issues are already inherent in Issues No.1 to 4 framed by the Court on 08.11.2024 and, therefore, no additional issues are required to be framed. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC which reads therein : 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.---- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to--- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.” 10. In the present case, the plaintiff asserts title over the suit property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2023, whereas defendant No.1 disputes the plaintiff’s title and asserts that the property in question is part of the ancestral/family property which came to his father pursuant to a family partition in the year 1977 and has thereafter remained in the possession of the family. 11. The controversy between the parties, therefore, essentially 6 relates to the identity of the property, the respective title claimed by the parties thereto, and the nature and extent of possession over the disputed portion. The learned trial Court has already framed issues as to whether the plaintiff is the title-holder of the suit property, whether he is in possession thereof after the alleged purchase, and whether defendant No.1 is in encroachment or illegal possession over 270 square metres of the suit land. 12. Thus, on a careful consideration of the pleadings and the issues already framed, it is apparent that the substance of the proposed additional issue is substantially covered by the existing issues. The mere fact that a particular aspect of the controversy has not been reproduced in the precise language suggested by a party would not, by itself, warrant framing of an additional issue, if the existing issues sufficiently encompass the matter requiring adjudication. 13. The apprehension expressed by defendant No.1 that he may be prevented from leading evidence in support of his written statement also does not appear to have any substantial basis. The evidence of the parties has to be considered in the context of the pleadings and the issues arising therefrom, and the issues already framed by the learned trial Court sufficiently cover the principal controversy between the parties. 14. It is also well settled that the purpose of framing issues is to identify the material propositions of fact or law which are affirmed by one party and denied by the other, so as to enable the parties to know 7 the precise matters which require adjudication. At the same time, the Court is not required to frame repetitive or overlapping issues when the controversy is already comprehensively covered by the issues framed. Moreover, Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC confers ample power upon the trial Court to amend, frame or delete any issue at any time before passing of the decree, if such course becomes necessary for determining the matter in controversy. Therefore, even otherwise, if at any subsequent stage the learned trial Court finds that any material issue requiring adjudication has escaped its consideration, it shall remain open to it to exercise the power available under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC in accordance with law. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no perversity, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The proposed additional issue having been substantially covered by the issues already framed, no useful purpose would be served by directing the learned trial Court to frame a separate issue in the terms suggested by defendant No.1. Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.08.19 17:37:05 +0530