Varia Parambil Kuttan v. M/s Engineer Components And Equipment

Judgment

ARS

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of -WP-8735-2025.DOC the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Defendant assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 15th February 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, whereby the Applications (Exhibits 45 and 47) in SCS No. 484 of 2017, preferred by the Petitioner, for framing additional issues came to be rejected

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under:

3.1

The Respondent-Plaintiff is a partnership firm. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of fabrication. The Defendant was employed with the Plaintiff as a “Foreman”. The Plaintiff claimed to have provided to the Defendant a furnished accommodation, being Flat No. D-13, 3 rd Floor, Golden and Silver Part Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Thane (“the suit flat”) as a service tenant. The Defendant was to use and occupy the suit flat till he was in the employment of the Plaintiff.

3.2 The Plaintiff asserts the Defendant resigned from the Plaintiff’s firm with effect from 31st December 2007. Thereupon, the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to vacate the suit flat vide letter dated 24th August 2009. As the Defendant did not vacate the suit flat, a legal notice was addressed to the Defendant on 6th August 2010. In reply, the ARS -WP-8735-2025.DOC Defendant contended that the suit flat was given to him by way of gift on account of outstanding services rendered by the Defendant to then partners of the Plaintiff. As the Defendant did not vacate the suit flat despite repeated requisitions and the legal notice dated 15th May 2017, a Suit came to be instituted for the eviction of the Defendant under Section 16(1)(f) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“the Rent Act, 1999”).

3.3 The Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing Written Statement. On the basis of the pleadings and material on record, the trial Court settled issues on 22nd August 2024, inter alia, whether the suit flat was let to the Defendant for use as the Defendant was in the service of the Plaintiff, and whether the Defendant, in turn, proved that the Plaintiff had allotted the suit flat to him on ownership basis.

3.4 The Defendant filed an Application (Exhibit 45) for framing addition issues on the aspects of locus standi of the Plaintiff to institute the Suit, existence of a cause of action, bar of limitation and proper valuation of the suit claim and payment of proper Court fees thereon. By way of another Application (Exhibit 47) the Defendant sought framing of another additional issue; whether the title suit was maintainable in the present form?

3.5 The Applications were resisted by the Plaintiff. ARS -WP-8735-2025.DOC

3.6 By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the Applications opining that the issues framed by order dated 22nd August 2024 were correctly settled to encapsulate the controversy and adjudicate all the disputes between the parties, and the additional issues proposed by the Defendant were not required to be framed as the contentions in the Written Statement on those points were vague in as much as one line objections were raised by the Defendant without material particulars.

3.7 Being aggrieved the Defendant has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

4. I have heard Mr. C.S. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Dr. D. S. Hatle, the learned Counsel for the Respondent at some length. The learned Counsel took the Court through the pleadings and the material on record.

5. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would urge that the learned Civil Judge has decided the Applications for framing additional issues in a causal and perfunctory manner. The Defendant had raised specific grounds questioning the maintainability of the suit, the bar of limitation and improper valuation of the suit claim. The learned Civil Judge was, therefore, not at all justified in rejecting the Applications by observing that the Defendant had raised one line objections. ARS -WP-8735-2025.DOC

6. Amplifying the submission, Mr. Joshi would urge that as there was no material to indicate that, on the date of the institution of the suit, the Plaintiff was a registered Partnership Firm and the person suing had been shown as partner in the firm, the suit was clearly barred by the provisions contained in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (“the Act, 1932”). Secondly the Defendant had raised specific ground of bar of limitation. In the reply to the legal notice, dated 6 th August 2010, the Defendant had categorically denied the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant was a service tenant and, thus, institution of the suit on 9th August 2017 was clearly barred by law of limitation.

7. In opposition to this, Dr. Hatle, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, would urge that, the Defendant had resorted to dilatory tactics by filing one application after another so as to squat on the suit flat despite the relationship of employer and employee having come to an end in the year 2007. The instant Applications were part of the said strategy. Dr. Hatle would submit that, the contentions in the Written Statement regarding the maintainability of the suit, bar of limitation and Court fees etc were bald and vague. The learned Civil Judge was, therefore, fully justified in declining to frame additional issues on the basis of such vague pleadings.

8. I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid rival submissions canvassed across the bar. ARS -WP-8735-2025.DOC

9. The imperativeness of framing correct issues in a civil trial can hardly be over-emphasized. Framing of correct issues is of critical salience for a correct decision of the lis. The object of framing an issue is to encapsulate the real dispute between the parties, narrow down the area of controversy and tie down the evidence to be adduced in support or rebuttal.

10. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal Vs Manas Bhunia and Ors1 “19. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departures therefrom. The date fixed for settlement of issues is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the court reflecting the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues the disputes on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The scheme of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on (2001) 2 SCC 652. 1 ARS -WP-8735-2025.DOC the court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact and the court may at once pronounce the judgment. If the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies, not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. 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. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided.

11. Under the scheme of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), an issue arises when a material proposition of law or ARS -WP-8735-2025.DOC fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. There ought to be clear and categorical pleadings to necessitate framing of an issue. Bald and vague contentions in the pleadings do not sustain an issue.

12. In the case of Bhagat Singh and Ors Vs Jaswant Singh,2 the Supreme Court underscored the necessity of adequate pleading. It was enunciated that a vague contention in the pleading would not cloth such contention with the definiteness of the requisite pleading and will not make it incumbent on the parties to lead evidence for or against the existence of a certain custom and the Plaintiff’s case not coming within it. The mere fact the Defendants contended in the Written Statement that the Plaintiff could not be adopted according to the custom does not tantamount to making the requisite pleas and, therefore, the view taken by both the Courts below cannot be said to be wrong. In fact, this view was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XIV of the Code.

13. In the case of T. H. Musthaffa Vs M.P. Varghese & Ors,3 the Supreme Court reiterated that if the pleadings did not contain the necessary foundation for raising an appropriate issue, the same cannot go to trial. Any amount of evidence in that regard, however excellent the same may be, will be futile.