The High Court · 2025

Petition unrler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OP No.7 of 2014, on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, till disposal of the CRP in the interest ofJustice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. Posampalli Vinoda, Wo. Rajamallu, Aged 36 years, Occp. House Wife, R/o. H.No.3-101 , Rangam.palli V/ o. Peddapalli (M), Karimnagar District.

2. Nampalli Susheela, Wo. Rajesham, Aged 46 years, Occp. House Wife, R/o. Bhupalapatnam V/o. Choppadandi (M), Karimnagar District. . . . Petitioners/Respondents/Defenda nts . AND

1. Katikanapalli Raja Komru @ Kummari Komraiah, S/o. Mallaiah, aged about 83 Years, Oocp. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-65/A, Post PP Colony, Rangampally V/o. Peddapalli (M), Karimnagar District (died on 02-09-2022 per LR s).

2. Smt. Katikenapalli Laxmi, S/o. Late Rajakomraiah, aged. 81 Years, (Wife) R/o.H.No.1-65/4 PP Colony, Rangampalli V/o. Peddapalll (M).

3. Katekenapalli Mallaiah, S/o. Late Rajakomraiah, Aged about 60 Years. (Son) R/o. Beside BC Hostel, Cheekurai Road, Peddapalli V/o. peddapalli (M) 4. Katekenapalli Ravider, S/o. Late Rajakomraiah, aged. 51 Years (Son) R/o.H.No.1-65/4, PP Colony, Rangampalli V/o. Peddapalli (M) (The Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as per l.A No.36912022)

5. Katikanapalli Laxmi, Wo. Late Rajamogili, aged about 50 Years, 6. K. Sai Kiran, S/o. Late Rajamogili, aged 26 years, Occp. tJn-Employee 7. K. Ranjith Kumar, S/o. Late Rajamogli, aged 30 years, Occp. Pvt. Employee (The Plaintiff Nos.S to 7 are brought on record as per 1.A No.36912022) . . . Respondents/petitioners/Plai ntiffs Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 1410212025 passed in lA No 1 of 2025 in CRP No 529 of 2025 of this Honorable Court. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Anirudh Thimmaraju Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Koteswar Rao Gone The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Civil Revision Petition No.529 OF 2()25 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.01.2025 in returning I.A.No.397 of 2024 in O.S.No.7 of 2Ol4 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order) on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, the plaintiffs preferred the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convbnience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli (hereinafter will be referred as 'trial CourtJ.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before this Court are that initially a suit vide O.S.No.7 of 2014 was filed by sole plaintiff seeking declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property against defendant Nos.l and 2. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.S to 7 as per the orders in t.A.No.369 of 2022. While stood thus, the plaintiffs filed petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide I.A.No.397 of 2024 to reopen the case so as to frame hdditional issues with regard to registered Will Deed \ I II I $ I i I i i i F I 1i t; i. ,i :: 1i 2 MGP,J cRP-.529 2025 dated 04.01.2014. However, the learned trial Cottrt returned the said petition on the ground that there are no pleadings in t.he amende<l plaint and thus, no additional issues to be framed. Aggrieved by' the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plainliffs.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of rt:vision.

5. The first and foremost contention of the plaintiffs is that the plaintifft;/petitioner Nos.2 to 7 were impleadcl after the death of plaintiff No.1/petitioner No.1 through the act of Will Deed and it is necessary to frame additional issues.

6. The other contention of the plaintiffs is thzrt the trial Court failed to exercise discretionary jurisdiction which is vested in it and dismissed the application.

7. It is pertinent to note that the learned trial Court has not dismissed the application but in fact returned the petition as there were no pleadings in the amended plaint so as to frame additional issues. When a petition is returned by the court, it is the duty of tl:re plaintiffs to resubmit the petition by complying with the objections. But in the instant case, the petitioners have preferred Civil Revision Petition without exhausting the I r) 3 MGP,J cRP_529_2025 remedy available to them before the trial Court in complying with the objections raised by the learned trial Court. Thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution in filing the present Civil Revision Petition. Even as per the version of the plaintiffs, it is the discretionary power of the trial Court in framing additional issues. Thus, the learned trial Court after exercising its discretionary power returned the petition on the ground that there are no pleadings so as to frame additional issues. Hence, the above contention of the petitioners/plaintiffs is untenable.

8. An issue, in a legal context, can be framed based on the material propositions of fact or lau, that are affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Framing issues helps to focus the trial and ensure that the court's decision is based on the relevant facts and legal arguments. Thus, an issue can be framed based on the pleadings. Even in the absence of any petition on behalf of either side, the Court may recast issues suo motu at any time before passing of a decree including when the arguments have concluded. Due care and caution must be applied in cases where issues are re-caste with special emphasis on the scope of pleadings between the parties and the necessity of such modification or cancellation of issues. 4 n[oP,J cRP 529-:!025

9. Further, the issues must not be re-caste directly in the judgment. Even when the same is done, the parties must be given a reas,onable opportunity of being heard and of adducing evidence. In the instant case, the plaintiffs are seeking to frame additional issues based on the registered Will Deed executed by the plaintiff No.l. On behalf of plaintiffs PWs I to 3 were examined and whereas on behalf of defendants DWI was examined. Admittedly the said Will Deed has already been marked as trx.Al2 during ,n. course of triat through the evidence of I)W2 subject to objection. As can be seen from the cross examirration of PW2, a suggestion was given to PW2 by the learned counsel for the defendants that Ex.A12 irs not valid since it u'as executed in the absence of subject mzrtter of the properties. Elven in the cross examination of PW3, a suggestion was given by the learned counsel for the defendant that EXs.A6 to A12 were created and produced before Court. Even in the cross examination of DW1, a suggestion was given to DWl that his father got executed registered will Deed in favour of his mother and ::rlso brothers. Thus, it is clear that the subject (Ex.A12 - will Deed) on which the plaintiffs are seeking to frame additional issues has already been introduced in the evidence and it was sut>jected to cross examination. { 5 MGP,J cRP_529_202s

10. tt is pertinent to note that the dispute between the parties pertains to the year 2Ol4 and the suit has come to the penultimate stage of submissions of arguments after completion of trial. The issues have been framed way back in the year 2OL6. The evidence of both the parties concluded in the month of January,2024 and the iase was adjourned to 24.O2.2O25 for pronouncement of judgment. Thus, filing of the application for framing of additional issues at the penultimate stage of the case only reveals the clear intention of plaintiffs to procrastinate the litigation and also to cover up the lacunae at their end. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the registered Wil! Deed came into existence recently. The plaintiffs also did not explain as to what kind of additional issues are to be framed with regard to Will Deed under Flx.Al2. ln Baini Prcrscrd. (died) through legal representatiaes a. Durga Deuil, the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under: "72. Now, uhat remains to be considered is whether the appellant lrcrein/defendant has pleaded and proued his plea of estoppel. The appellants would contend that non- framing of the qu.estion of estoppel as an tssue is not fatal in the facts and circumstarrces as also in uieu of the euidence auailable on recnrd, in tlrc case on hand. To buttress the contention, the appellants relg on tlrc decision of thi"s Court in Nedunuri Kameswarannma u. Sampati Subba Rao. Tlrc releuant recital in the paragraph 5 of the said decision reads thus:- "5. ...No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could haue been more elaborate; but since the parties utent to trial fullg knowing the riuat case and led all tlw euidence not onlg in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it ' 2023 INSC 95 I 6 MCP,.t cRP,529_2025 cannot be said that the absence of an issue utas fatal to the case, or that there was that mistial which uitiates proceedings. We are, th.erefore, of opinion that the suit could rtot be disnissed on this natrotu ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as th.e eutdence- uhich has beert led in the case is sufficient to reach t,\e rtght conclusiort.""

11. As per order XIV Rule 5 of the code of civil procedure, a court can frame or amend issues at any stage before passing a decree, as necessary to determine the matters in controversy between the parties provided that the parties musr- be given a reasonable opportunity of .being heard and of adducing evidence. Flou,ever, in the instant case, both the parties have adduced tht:ir respective evidence in connection with Ex.A12 will Deecl. A court can give a Iinding even without formally framing an issue, especially if the parties have' presented evidence ancl arguments on the contested point, and the court is satisfied that the parties were aware of the issues in dispute. If sufficient evidence and pleadings are available, the court can go into the question and decide the matter, even if an issue was not formally framed. In view of the principle laid clown above and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the parties proceeded with the trial of thr: case fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence rLot only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of other ). 7 MGP,J cRP_529-2025 side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue is fatal to the CASC

12. In MB Sanghvi v. Secretary, Madras Chillies Merchant2 the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the Court should not determine an issue which does not arise on the pleadings. The main object of framing issues is to ascertain the real dispute between the parties by narrowing down the area of conflict and determine where the parties differ. An obligation is cast on the court to read the plaint and the written statement and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are variance. The evidence shall be con{ined to the issues. As stated supra, though issue has not been framed, both the parties have adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. Where the parties went to trail with full knowledge that a particular point was at issue, they have not been prejudiced and substantial justice has been done, absence of an issue is not fatal to the case so as to vitiate the proceedings. Since both the parties have already adduced 2 AIR 1969 SC 530 -] i I I I I I I I I i 8 rioP,.1 cRP-529-2025 their respective evidence in connection with Ex.Al:2 Will Deed, there is no necessit5r of reopening the case or giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, more particularly when the suit is of the year 2OI4 an<l posted for judgment afrier hearing both the sides.

13. Moreover, a civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution can be filed only when there is an error apparent on the face r>f the record, indicating a jurisdictional issue or a manifest miscarriage of justice, and not for corrr:cting mere errors of lav,' or fact. In the instant case, since there are no pleadings in the amended plaint, the learned trial Court has rightly returned the petition. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs ought to have complied with the objections raised by the trial cour-t. Moreover, it is to be seen that the plaintiffs have not sought f<rr any relief based on Ex.A12 will Deed. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that there are pleadings in the amended plaint with regard to Ex.A12 will Deed. flince there are no errors apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, this court is not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived by the learned trial court and thereby this Civil Revision petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 9 I'IOP,J cRP_S29_2025 t4. Accordingly, the Civii Revision Petition is dismissed. However, to meet the ends of justice, while passing the judgment the learned trial Court is directed to make necessary observations about genuineness or validity or otherwise of Ex.A12 Will Deed and its impact on the rights of the parties in respect of suit schedule property. There shall be no order as to Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli 2. One CC to SRl. ANIRUDH THIMMARAJU Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. KOTESWAR RAO GONE Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies Chs/PSL r* HIGH COURT DATED :2714312025 .<'= -(rtL .:, i..) t * $( > 7 d 03i-icm D f',Q1'-.1-,.:r -;;::-a-'/' ORDER CRP.No.529 of 2025 THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED u