IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.11.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
C.R.P.PD.No.3583 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
1.G.Alex Benziger
2.Dr.Leonard Vasanth
3.J.V.Fernando
4.D.Joseph Benedict ... Petitioners/plaintiffs
Vs
1. The Tamil Nadu Catholic Bishops
Council for the Commission for
Bible represented by its Chairman
The Archbishop of Madurai
Madurai-625 008
2. Rt.Rev.Dr.M.Arokiasamy
Archbishop of Madurai
Archibishop's House
Madurai-625 008
3. The Director
Tamil Nadu Biblical
Catechetical and Liturgical Centre
Tindivanam-604002
4. Arch Diocese of Madras-Mylapore
Bible Commission
15,Rosary Church Road
Santhome, Madras-600 004. ... Respondents/defendants
Civil Revision Petition filed against the order dated 19.8.2008 made in I.A.No. 14795 of 2008 in O.S.No.15874 of 1996 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Shanmugakani
O R D E R
The petitioners herein who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.15874 of 1996 have filed the above revision petition as against the order dated 19.8.2008 passed in I.A.No.14796 of 2008 in O.S.No.15874 of 1996 by III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dismissing the application filed under Order XIV and Section 151 CPC praying to frame the additional issues mentioned therein.
2. The Court below has passed orders in I.A.No.14796 of 2008 in O.S.No.15874 of 1996 inter alia observing as follows:
“Already issues have been framed by my predecessor. I do not see any reason to frame the issues mentioned in this petition. Even if it is absolutely necessary to frame issue , it can be done at any time. The present petition is totally an unnecessary one. Hence it is rejected.”
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs urges before this Court that the Court below has erred in dismissing the application in I.A.No.14795 of 2008 and that the additional issues sought to be framed in the suit are indispensably required to decide the complete issues arising in the said suit and if the additional issues sought for are not framed in the suit, the real dispute/controversy between the parties cannot be decided in the right perspective and that the issues already framed by the Court are not sufficient to direct the revision petitioners/plaintiffs from adducing the evidence and in any event the order of the Court below is not sustainable either in law or on facts and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition to prevent the aberration of justice.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs cites the decision reported in Kaniz Fathima(deceased)-v- Shah Naim Ashraf(AIR 1983 Allahabd 450 at page 453) wherein it has been observed as follows:
“The foremost question which crops up for consideration is as to what is the object of the framing of the issues and on whom the responsibility rests for framing accurate issues in the suit. A reference may be made to O.14 R.1(5) of the Code which provides:
“At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements if any and after examination under R.2,O.X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the decision of the case appears to depend.” The aforesaid provision would indicate that the object of framing of issues is to direct the attention of the parties to the main questions of fact or law to be decided and the duty of framing and recording the proper issues has been placed on the Court by the Civil P.C. It is expected that in framing the issues the Courts of law should exert themselves so as to make them sufficiently expressive of the matters which they desire to consider the such issues. The provision contained in R.5 O.14 of the Code further indicates that in case any relevant issue has been left out to be framed, the Court may, at any time before passing the decree, amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit and all such amendment or additional issues, as may be necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties, shall be made or framed. It is thus evident that for proper determination of the matters in controversy between the parties, a duty is cast on Court to frame proper issues before embarking upon to record a decision on the point. The Court would not be justified in the absence of a definite issue, in going into the question and recording a finding on a point, although the same may appear to be very material for recording proper decision in the case.”
5.It cannot be gainsaid that Order XIV Rule 3 CPC enjoins that the Court is not confined to pleadings only and can draw upon the contents of documents produced by either party and accordingly an issue can be allowed to be raised from the documents filed before the Court. Moreover, even if there was no clear pleading the Court can draw upon the contents of documents produced by the parties. As a matter of fact, the Court of law while framing issues has to take into account besides the pleadings and replies to the interrogatories, the allegations made by the parties, or by their pleaders and the documents produced by the parties. As a general Rule, the Court of law ought not to frame even additional issues from materials other than those specified in Rule 3 of Order XIV CPC. The Court, may, however, under special circumstances, allow issues to be raised upon a matter which does not strictly come within the proper scope of the proceedings, provided no injustice is done to either party. If the existing issues framed by the Court are not comprehensive and complete enough to cover proposed additional issues, then it is for the Court below to deal with the application filed to rectify the defect in the manner known to law, by providing opportunity to parties to produce documents and to lead evidence relating to that additional or amended issues. Amendment of issues is purely within the discretion of the trial Court. No right or obligation of a party is determined, either by Court, refusing to delete the issues or by Court adding more to them. It is only a procedural matter. However, the trial Court is required to determine the controversies between the parties. If the Court considers it necessary for determining the matters in controversy, it can raise an additional issues even at the stage of arguments and allow the parties to lead evidence on such new issue.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners informs this Court that in I.A.No. 14795 of 2008, the trial Court has not issued notice to other side and that the trial Court has rejected the same by passing an erroneous order. Inasmuch as framing of issues or amendment of issues are within the discretion of trial Court and based on the principle that no obligation or no right of a party is determined either refusing to delete the issues by Court or adding more to them. Since it is a procedural matter, this Court in the interests of justice directs the trial Court to order issuance of notice to the other side in I.A.No.14795 of 2008 in O.S.No.15874 of 1996 and if necessary to receive the counter of the respondents/defendants and taking into account of over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the pleadings and respective allegations made by the
parties or by the pleaders and the documents produced by them, and dispose of the matter within two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and the revision petition is disposed of with the above observations.
7. In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.14795 of 2008 in O.S.No.15874 of 1996 dated 19.8.2008 on the file of III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is set aside and the trial Court is directed to restore I.A.No.14795 of 2008 on its file and issue notice to other parties and to dispose of the same, by receiving counter if any,and in the manner known to law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If situation warrants, the trial Court shall frame additional issues so as to set at rest completely and comprehensively of all the disputes/controversies in the suit. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
03.11.2008
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
sg
To the Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai
C.R.P.PD.No.3583/2008
[ PRV / 16169 ]