The High Court · 2025

affidavit filed in supi:ort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all proceedings, including the final arguments, in O.S. No.228 of 2014 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem pending disposal of the above C.R.P and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. L RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'B],E JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CML ]IEVISION PETITION No.235O of :2022 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Clonstitution of India, assailing the order dated

18.O8.2022 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2O2l in O.S.No.228 of 2014 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

2. As per track consignment, notice to sole respondent "r,as served on 24.11 .2022

3. Petition er is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.228 of 2014. d I Respondent herein-petitioner defendant has filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read rvith 151 of C.P.C pra,ving the learned trial Court to frame the addilional issues r,vhich are as under: I . Whether plaintiff handed over the suit schedule mortgaged property to the defendant towards full and hnal settlement of mortgage debt? If so whether the defendant is in possession of the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage debt without seeking rccovery of possession of suit property? I 1 I ) BRt' C.R.P No.2350 of 20i:. \.1

3. Whether the suit cl{m is barred by limitation? suit?

4. Whether Kona Murali has no right to file the

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage without depositing the mortgage debt?

6. Whether calculation of suit claim ald the claim about future interest is in accordance with mortgage deed?"

4.2. It is stated in the affidavit that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for passing of preliminary deiree to execute a registered cancellation of mortgage deed in respect of the suit scheduie property by cancelling Document No. 210 of 2000 of the Sub-Registrar Office, Kothagudem, by collecting the alnount due under the said mortgage deed from the plaintiff, and for passing a final decree. The petitioner defendarrt has filed his written statement stating that the suit claim is barred by limitation, that the plaintiff never executed the poiver ol attorney in favour of Mr. Kona Murali arrd that the respondent-ptaintiff has delivered possession of the suit schedule property to him towards full and final settlement of the mortgage debt. Respondent-plaintiff has liled his counter, contending the issues framed by the Court are in accordance with and that the issues requested by the petitioner-defendant not maintainable, since the petitioner did not file arly BRMR,J C. R.P No.2350 of 2022 I I counterclaim regarding the claim of adverse possession and handing over the property towards full and final settlement of the suit ciaim. It is further stated that the respondent-plaintiff has already issued a lega1 notice to thr pe t-ltioner-defendalt to receive the rnortgage amount along with interest and to execute the redemption deed, and prayed for dismissal ol the said application.

6. The learnerl trial Court, after going through the material on record, has tilknved the application filed by the Respondent- petitioner, u'hich is impugned in the Civil Revision Petition

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by th e learned trial Court is on presumptions and surmises and is against the principles of law. 'lhe additional issues sought to be framed caxnot go beyond the pleadings, ard the order has been passed without proper application of mind. There is no cogeni reasoning as to how the amount ordered could have been passed rn the iight of the objections raised by the petitioner-respondent and prayed to allow the C.R.P. 4 B k,. C.R.P No.2350 of 2C2: \i \ -.,

8. Before answering the contentionr of the counsel for the petitioner it is appropriate to refer Order XIV Rurle 5 of C.P.C which reads as under: "5 Power to amend and strike out issues.-(1) The Court may ar a.ny time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additiona-l issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and a]l such amendments or additional issues as may be necessaqz for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out arly issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced." 9, l,earned counsel lor the petitioner has dran*rn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of I.A.No. I of 2C22 (Stay petition filed by the petitioner) u,hereir-r he stated that "lt is subrnitted that the eiaborate tria-l took place and P.W. i to P.W.3 were examined and exhibits A-1 to A-4 are marked on behalf ol the petitioner/plaintiff herein. Also, DW- 1 to DW-4 r,vere examined ard Exhibits B- 1 to B-9 a-re marked on behaif of the respondent/ defendant. The matter was posted for arguments." "lt is submitted that at that juncture, when the petitioner's arguments were ciosed, the respondent/ defendant took time and thereafter filed al application in I.A.No.4 of 2O2l in O.S.No.22B of / 2014 under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C praying -ihe Honble Court to frame additional issues on the ground that only one issue rvas framed initially and that it was ,/ I l ) B RI\,I R, J C.R.P No.2350 of 2022 essential to fiame the additional issues as stated in the appended petition schedule. The copy of the aflldavit and petition in I.A.No.4 of 2O2i in O.S.No.22B of 2014 is filed as a document. The contents of the same may be read a s l-),:rt and parcel of this aJfidar.it. "

10. On perusal of the plaint averments, it shou,s that the petitioner-p l:Lin tiff has prayed for a decree in his favour against the del-endant (Respondent herein), and the prayer portion is as under:- "a) To direct the defendant to execute a Registered Cancellation of Mortgaile Deed of suit schedule property by r;alcelli::rg the Registered Mortgage Deed document No.21O/2OOO of Sub- Registrar Officer, Kothagudem by collecting the amount due under rhe said mortgage deed from the plaintiff by passing a preliminarl'decree; b) Even afier deposit of the due amount under the above said Registered Mortgage Deed document No.21Oi 2OOO of Sub- Registr:rr Oflice, Kothagudem the defendant fails to execute a redemption of document releasing the suit schedule property, t1-e Honble Court shal1 cause execution of the said redemption / calcellation of mortgage deed releasing the suit schedule property from any lien by passing a frnal decree on a separatc petition; c) To award interest at the rate of 60/o p.a., on the decreetal a-rnount from the date of the mortgage deed till its realization; d) to ai,r'ard costs of the suit; and e) to pass any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may be deems fit ald proper in the circumstances of the case, in tJle interest of j r,rstice-"

11. The petitioner in I.A. No. 4 of 2O2! who is the defendalt in the suit has liled his rvritten statement, wherein he contended in p*.g.$t. No.S that "-,r.hen the plaintiff could not repay the said 6 C.R.P No.23 50 of 2 loal amount, he handed over the suit propertv (mortgaged property) to the plaintiff towards full and final settlement. As such now the suit property is ttre absolute property of the piaintifL That is why the plaintiff kept quiet for all thes: years". It is mentioned in Paragraph No.6 that Mr.Kona Murali has no locus to file the suit and in paragraph No.9 that the suit is barred by limitation.

12. On perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court, it goes to shows that the application is allowed in Toto. It is appropriate to mention here that additional issue No.2, which is lramed by the learned trial Court, is rvithout pleadings. Hence, additional issue No.2 is hereby rejected and this Court is of the opinion that the other issues framed by the learned trial Court, i.e., additional issue Nos. 1,3,4, 5, and 6, shall remain the same which are based on the pleadings of the parties. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial ourt vrrith regard to the aforesaid issues As the suit is posted for arguments of Respondent-defendant the additional issues are framed by the learned trial Court, leai-ned trial Court shall follow the procedure as gontemplated under la'"v white deciding the case. I .r' 7 BRM R,] C. R-P No.2350 of 2022 L4. With thr: above said observation, this Civrl Revision Petition is.lisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Interirn ordel's if anv stand . vacated. Miscellaneous petition/ s sl.rall stand closed. SD/- B REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// e. Kothaqudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] To,

1. I Addl. Senior Civil Judg 2. One CC to SRl. L RAVI 3. Two CD CoPies GE/ABK MV :j HIGH COURT DATED:16/'10/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2350 ol 2022 IHE SI4 2 i l,l0lJ il16 i/o t{? lr- J-- \-"/*'W, 2 .o+ 4i -.+ ._. --. ---_; .:-.7 q ,\ 1 1t $ DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS