2026:CGHC:13439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 792 of 2025 1 - Paresh Agrawal Alias Paresh Baghbehra S/o Late Sagar Chand Agrawal Aged About 69 Years R/o I-18/19, Anupam Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Girja Devi Agrawal, W/o Paresh Agrawal Aged About 61 Years R/o I-18/19, Anupam Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ankit Jindal S/o Naresh Chandra Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Baghbhera, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Prakhar Jindal S/o Naresh Chandra Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Baghbhera, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Shobhna Agrawal, W/o Naresh Chandra Agrawal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Baghbhera, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Ankit Pandey, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 19.03.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baghbehra, District-Mahasamund, in Civil Suit-59A of 2023, whereby the application filed Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.03.27 12:03:05 +0530 Wp227 792 of 2025 2 under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC filed by the petitioners for framing of additional issues has been partly allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners were defendants before the learned trial Court, where the respondents are prosecuting the Civil Suit for declaration and partition of the suit property. In the Civil Suit, they have filed their written statement and after exchange of the pleadings, issues have been framed by the learned trial Court. Nine issues were framed by the learned trial Court. However, considering that with respect to the partner of the partnership firm and difference in two partnership firms, no issues were framed by the learned trial Court, they have made application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC for framing of additional issues. The said application was filed on 09.01.2025. He would further submit that learned trial Court vide its order dated 09.06.2025, partly allowed the application filed by the petitioners and out of eight proposed issues, only three issues have been framed, whereas, the issue No.4 is also a necessary issue involved in the case which is to be framed. He would also submit that in absence of any proper issue, the party may deprived of by leading evidence in the case which may prejudice their case. Therefore, learned trial Court may be directed to frame additional issue including issue No.4 also. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and would submit that learned trial Court, after considering the issue involved in the case, has correctly framed the issue. Earlier, vide impugned order dated 09.06.2025, the learned trial Court framed additional issue in the case, and there is no requirement to frame any other additional issue. He would also Wp227 792 of 2025 3 submit that issue No.4 also included in the other issues which have been additionally framed vide order dated 09.06.2025 therefore, there is no material in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized his submissions on the proposed issue No.4 which is also proposed to be framed, and application under order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC before the learned trial court has been filed on 09.01.2025. He would draw attention to the issue No.4 proposed by them before the learned trial Court which is annexed at page-68 of the petition. From perusal of the issue No.4, it transpires that issue No.1 covers the scope of issue No.4 also, and since issue No.1 has already been additionally framed by the learned trial court, there is no necessity to frame issue No.4 in addition to issue No.1. Even otherwise, the trial court has empowered to frame, alter or delete the issue at any point of time before passing of its judgment. Since the proposed issue No.4 appears to be part of issue No.1 which has already been framed additionally before the learned trial Court on 09.06.2025, I do not find any scope for interference or directing the learned trial Court to frame additional issue in the case, as proposed issue No.4 already covered in the issue No.1 which has already been framed. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma