JUDGMENT
R.C. Jain, J.
1. This civil revision is directed against the
order of the learned Additional District Judge dated
30-1-2002 by which the learned trial court has
dismissed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC
filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant seeking
reframing/modification of existing issue No.4 and for
framing 3 additional issues.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
challenge the impugned order mainly on the ground that
defendant-petitioners have raised certain specific
objections and pleas in their written statement about
the maintainability of the suit; plaintiff having got
no cause of action for filing the suit and also about
the agreement to sell land in question which is the
basis of the suit being void and the subject matter of
the suit agreement was covered by the provisions of
Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 and the consideration
provided for in the agreement is grossly inadequate
and illusory and agreement. The court existing issues
framed do not take into account the said specific
pleas of the petitioner-defendant.
3. On a consideration of the matter it is noted
that the present suit filed by the
plaintiff-respondent is for specific performance of
agreement to sell and damages and on the basis of the
pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the
following issues:
1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled
to a decree of specific performance
of agreement dated 27-7-99 against
the defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
a decree of recovery of
Rs. 1,45,000/- with interest in the
alternative as alleged?
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable
as alleged?
4. Whether the agreement in question is
void as alleged, if so, to what
effect?
5. Relief?
4. Application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with
Section 151 CPC was moved after the plaintiff had led
and concluded his evidence and when the case was at the
stage of defendant evidence. The plaintiff sought the
modification of issue No.4 and framing of the
additional three issues as under :
Proposed Issue No.4:
“Whether the agreement in question
is void agreement being not
enforceable in view of the Delhi
Land Reform Act as alleged, if so,
to what effect?”
Proposed additional issues:
1. “Whether there is no cause of action
in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendants to file the
present suit?
2. Whether consideration amount shown
in the agreement is illusory and not
adequate as alleged, if so to what
effect?
3. Whether the physical possession of
the land in question was actually
handed over by the defendants to the
plaintiff at the time of execution
of the Agreement?
5. Learned trial court has declined to consider,
the application favorably mainly on the ground that
the application was moved at a belated stage when the
matter was fixed for defendant evidence which was aimed
at delaying the proceedings in the suit. It was also
stated that the issue No.4 with regard to the agreement
in question being void did not require any
modification.
6. This court on a consideration of the facts,
circumstances and the material placed on record and the
above submissions of the counsel is also of the view
that although delay in filing the application or for
seeking modification of issues is not a sufficient
ground in itself to decline the application if on the
face of the pleas of the parties and for the effective
adjudication of the controversy between the parties
such a modification of the issues or framing of the
additional issue is required. However, the question is
as to whether on the face of the facts of the case and
the plea raised by the petitioner-defendant any
modification of the existing issue or framing of any
additional issue was called for. The answer is plain
in the negative because the existing issues are wide
enough in there scope so as to cover the pleas and
contentions raised by the petitioner-defendant. The
defendant would be free to lead any quantum of evidence
in support of issue No.4 in order to show that the
agreement to sell is void for the reasons stated in the
written statement. Similarly the existing issue No.3
in regard to the non-maintainability of the suit also
covers the proposed additional issue No.1 and no
additional issue was required to be framed. Issue No.3
does not arise from the pleadings of the parties as
neither the petitioner-plaintiff has not claimed relief
of possession. The defendant cannot be allowed to
raise the controversy about the possession of the
property in question.
7. For the reasons stated, this court is of the
opinion that no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional
error is seen in the impugned order which calls for any
interference by this court. Dismissed.
CM No.907/02 also stands disposed of.