Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr. S.V.S. Ravi Krishna vs K. Sita Ramaiah And Anr. on 20 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)ALT569
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This Court on 22-7-2002 had ordered Notice Before Admission and in response to the notice, the counsel for the respondents had made his appearance.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against an order dated 23-4-2002 made in I.A.No. 1495/2001 in O.S.No. 174/99 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
3. The Revision Petitioner, Dr. S.V.S. Ravi Krishna, is the petitioner in I.A. No. 1495/2001 in O.S.No. 174/99 and the plaintiff in the said suit. The petitioner filed the aforesaid suit as against the respondents/defendants praying for a declaration as the sole legal heir of late Dr. Padma Priya and also for a declaration that the gift settlement deed dated 17-6-1999 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and also for a further declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Schedule I to Schedule VI properties and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants and any other person or persons claiming through or under them from in any way dealing with or changing the nature of Schedule I to VI properties. A written statement in detail was filed by the 1st defendant and certain Issues were settled. However, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present application under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w, Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code", for framing of certain additional Issues specified in the said application on the ground that these are material propositions asserted by one party and denied by the other party and hence the learned Judge should have framed these Issues and inasmuch as such Issues were not framed for the better adjudication of the question in controversy, the said Issues are to be framed. The learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, after hearing both the parties had arrived at a conclusion that for the purpose of disposal of the suit, the Issues already framed are sufficient and the framing of additional Issues is not required at all and ultimately dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
4. Sri Viswanatha Reddy, the learned counsel representing the Revision Petitioner had drawn my attention to the allegations made in the plaint in general and paragraph 3 in particular and also had drawn my attention to the schedule of properties in general and Schedule VI specifying Maruthi Esteem car in particular. The learned counsel also had taken me through the allegations made in the written statement of the 1st defendant and the specific allegations both at paragraphs 4 and 5 in this regard. The learned counsel also had taken me through the additional Issues which had been specified in the application and had submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, these additional Issues are to be framed for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy between the parties.
5. Sri Balaji, counsel representing Sri Gudapati Venkateswar Rao on the other hand has submitted that the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable since it is not a "case decided" within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. The learned Counsel also submitted that under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Code, Issues arise out of the material propositions asserted by one party and denied by the other party. The counsel also had taken me through the Issues already originally settled by the Court and had pointed out that in fact, Issue No. 1 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration as sole legal heir of late Dr. Padma Priya?" is a comprehensive Issue and the additional Issues now sought to be framed at the instance of the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff are superfluous and not at all necessary in view of the respective pleadings of the parties. The learned counsel also would comment that if the allegations made in paragraph 3 of the plaint and the allegations made in paragraph 5 of the written statement of the 1st defendant are carefully scrutinized, it is only in the form of an explanation and there is no assertion or denial so as to give raise to an issue in this regard. The learned counsel while concluding submitted that at any rate the Revision Petitioner is in no way prejudiced and unless the impugned order suffers from the jurisdictional error and occasions in failure of justice, the same need not be interfered with while exercising Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.
6. Heard both the counsel.
7. As can be seen from the application I.A.No. 1495/2001 in O.S.No. 174/99 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the Revision Petitioner made a request for the framing of the following additional Issues:
(1) Whether the deceased late Dr. Padma Priya is the daughter of the 1st defendant and adoption given to Subba Rao as stated by him in the written statement?
(2) Whether the deceased late Dr. Padma Priya is the daughter of Subba Rao as per the revenue records?
(3) Whether the Maruti Car was purchased by the defendants as stated in their written statement?
(4) Whether the defendant has offered as a dowry of Rs. 50,00,000/- as stated by defendants in the written statements?
(5) Whether the plaintiff has asked at the time of marriage such as diamond ring, gold chain, gold bracelet apart from dowry as stated by the defendants in the written statement?
(6) To what relief ?
As already referred to supra, the said application for framing of additional Issues was held to be unnecessary and the same was dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. In Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. v. Ladha Ram and Co., and order framing an additional issue or refusing to frame an additional issue was held to be not revisable inasmuch as it is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. In Harish v. Som Nath, it was held that an order dismissing an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code thereby refusing to frame additional issues would certainly be an adjudication in the course of a suit of some right or obligation of the parties in controversy and would fall within the words "case decided" and such order can be revised provided the conditions laid down in the proviso to Section 115 of the Code are satisfied. Reliance also was placed on Sadhu Ram v. Ganshyam Dass, AIR 1975 P & H 174 and Bishan Singh v. Murti Shivji, AIR 1969 J & K 50.
8. The framing of Issues and additional Issues definitely is a matter or an essential step since the whole trial, recording of evidence and also the recording of findings will depend upon the Issues only and hence such order refusing to frame Issues or additional Issues definitely will fall under "case decided" and hence the Revision is maintainable under Section 115 of the Code.
9. The next question to be decided is in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by this Court under Section 115 of the Code. It is no doubt true that the impugned order is a very short order. But however, the learned Judge had dealt with the Issues already framed and had arrived at the conclusion that those Issues are sufficient for the purpose of deciding the suit and framing of additional Issues may not be necessary. Order 14 Rule 1 of the Code deals with Framing of Issues and Sub-section (1) says Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and Sub-section (2) further specifies that material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which the plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code deals with Power to amend and strike out issues and Sub-section (1) specifies that the Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. From the language of the provision, it is clear that it is the duty of the Court to frame necessary Issues. In the present case, in fact, Issues had been already settled and while deciding the application the Court had arrived at the conclusion that these Issues are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the suit. As already referred to supra, the petitioner as plaintiff had approached the Court for the reliefs which had been specified supra. I had given my anxious thought to the respective pleadings of the parties placed before me and also the Issues which had been already settled and I am thoroughly satisfied that the Issues already settled are sufficient for the purpose of deciding the questions in controversy between the parties in this suit. It is pertinent to note that the scope of the suit or the nature of the litigation cannot be enlarged by requesting the Court to frame unnecessary Issues by way of additional Issues. It may be appropriate to have a look at paragraph 3 of the plaint and paragraph 5 of the written statement of the 1st defendant on which serious stress was placed by the respective counsel while advancing their contentions. It is pleaded at paragraph 3 of the plaint:
"The plaintiff submits that at the time of marriage it was not informed to the family of the plaintiff that Padma Priya was given in adoption by defendant No. 1 to Sri K.V. Subba Rao and the said fact was evident by a registered adoption deed dated 10-10-1991 and since then Padma Priya lived with the family of the said K.V. Subba Rao. Thereafter, the adoptive father K.V. Subba Rao purchased various properties in the name of Padma Priya including the land admeasuring 6 acres in Survey No. 148 of Sultanpur village, Sidhaneer Taluk under two registered sale deeds and one plot of 95' x 85' in Bellary Cantonment of T.S.No. 181/2. She also acquired 4 acres of land in Survey No. 154/6-1 and 157/6-1 of Sultanpur village, K.V. Subba Rao and his wife expired intestate leaving Smt. Padma Priya as their sole legal heir."
At paragraph 5 of the Written statement of the 1st defendant it is pleaded:
"In reply to para No. 3, it is true that the deceased was given in adoption to Sri K.V. Subba Rao, who is the maternal grand father. The said Sri K.V. Subba Rao died and after his death his wife Smt. K. Jagadeeswari has given relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 as there was no male member to perform the marriage of deceased and to look after the welfare of Dr. Padma Priya as she do not possess any property".
From these pleadings of the parties, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said to be an assertion and denial so as to give rise to the settlement of an additional issue.
Further, elaborate arguments had been advanced relating to the additional Issue No. 3 "Whether the Maruthi Car was purchased by the defendants as stated in their written statement". When the very foundation of the suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of the deceased Dr. Padma Priya, the first Issue is a comprehensive Issue and all these additional Issues which can be said to be ancillary Issues separately need not be framed. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the none-framing of additional Issues by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District had not in any way prejudiced the rights of the Revision Petitioner. When a Revision is filed against an interlocutory order, apart from satisfying the other conditions, it must also be satisfied that there would be failure of justice if the impugned order is allowed to stand In the Matter of B.H.P. and v. Ltd., Visakhapatnam, AIR 1985 A.P. 207. In the present matter. I am of the opinion that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would not occasion in any failure of justice.
10. Viewed from any angle, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.