Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Peermahant Pashupatinath Cela Shri ... vs Municipal Council Sardarshahar ... on 10 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:44645]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19754/2025
Peermahant Pashupatinath Cela Shri Somnathji Maharaj, Age 72
Years, Resident Of Somnath Ashram Ward No. 18, Sardarshahar,
District Churu. (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Municipal Council Sardarshahar, Through Executive Officer
Municipal Council Sardarshahar.
2. Vimla Devi W/o Chunnilal Sharma, Near Somnathji
Temple, Ward No 29 Sardarshahar, Churu.
3. Sub Registrar, Sardarshahar Sub Registrar Office
Sardarshahar, District Churu.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sardarshahar,
District Churu.
5. Mangli Devi D/o Late Deepchand Purva W/o Jhumarmal
Darji, Ward No.5, Nohar District Hanumangarh.
6. Geeta D/o Late Deepchand Purva W/o Bhanwarlal Bhati,
Gaushala Bas Sardarshahar, Churu.
7. Saroj D/o Late Deepchand Purva W/o Sajjan Kumar, Near
Todiyan's Well, Laxmangarh District Sikar.
8. Sukhi D/o Late Deepchand Purva W/o Anand Bihari
Didwania, Ginnaani Bas Sardarshahar District Churu.
9. Deepa W/o Late Deepchand Purva, Ward No. 13, Near
Vishwakarma Temple Sardarshahar District Churu.
10. Rukmani Devi W/o Late Pratap Singh Purva, Ward No. 13,
Near Vishwakarma Mandir Sardarshahar District Churu.
11. Hemant Kumar S/o Late Pratap Singh Purva, Ward No.
13, Near Vishwakarma Temple Sardarshahar District
Churu, At Present R/o Vyas Colony, Bikaner.
12. Himanshu Rai S/o Late Pratap Singh Purva, Ward No. 13,
Near Vishwakarma Temple Sardarshahar District Churu.
13. Arvind Singh S/o Late Pratap Singh Purva, Ward No. 13,
Near Vishwakarma Temple Sardarshahar District Churu.
14. Bhavana D/o Late Pratap Singh W/o Manish Ratan, Nohar,
At Present R/o Digjam Colony, Jamnagar. (Gujarat)
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:40:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 11/10/2025 at 12:32:08 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44645] (2 of 5) [CW-19754/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.D. Chitlangi
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order 10/10/2025 By filing instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sardarshahar, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.150/2021 [104/2013] titled as Peermahant Pashupatinath vs. Municipal Council & Ors., whereby the trial court has re-framed the issues that were originally framed on 08.12.2017.
2. The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a civil suit in the year 2013 before the learned Additional District Judge, Churu Camp Sardarshahar, seeking declaration and cancellation of Patta No.76 dated 12.03.2013 along with permanent injunction and eviction. The defendants filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as 11 issues. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was opposed by respondent No.2. The learned Additional District Judge, Sardarshahar, vide order dated 15.07.2025, while disposing of the said application, re-framed the issues afresh, thereby superseding the earlier issues framed on 08.12.2017.
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:40:30 PM) (Downloaded on 11/10/2025 at 12:32:08 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:44645] (3 of 5) [CW-19754/2025] Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after framing of the issues by the trial court, while preparing the affidavit, it was thought proper by the plaintiff-petitioner that for effective and complete adjudication of the matter in controversy, two additional issues were required to be framed. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, instead of framing the additional issues as prayed for, the learned trial court, while purportedly exercising its powers under Section 151 CPC, proceeded to supersede the earlier issues framed on 08.12.2017 and framed an entirely new set of issues, thereby materially altering the scope of the trial and unfairly shifting the burden onto the plaintiff-petitioner.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel that the trial court has committed a grave illegality and procedural irregularity in disposing of the application of the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, particularly when the written arguments submitted by the petitioner were not even considered before passing the impugned order. Such an approach amounts to arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 (Annex.8) passed by the trial court be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:40:30 PM) (Downloaded on 11/10/2025 at 12:32:08 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:44645] (4 of 5) [CW-19754/2025]
6. For proper adjudication of the case, Order XIV Rule V is reproduced hereunder:
5. Power to amend and strike out, issues.
(1) 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.
(2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.
7. In light of the above legal position, it is apparent that though the trial court is vested with ample powers under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend or frame additional issues at any stage of the proceedings, however, such power must be exercised judiciously, with due application of mind and not in a cursory or mechanical manner. The discretion conferred by the provision is to be exercised for the purpose of effectively adjudicating the real questions in controversy between the parties and not in a manner that prejudices either side or alters the nature of the proceedings unfairly.
8. In the instant matter, the trial court, instead of addressing the specific averments raised in the application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues, proceeded to substitute all the issues originally framed on 08.12.2017 and thereby shifted the entire burden of proof upon the petitioner-
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:40:30 PM) (Downloaded on 11/10/2025 at 12:32:08 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:44645] (5 of 5) [CW-19754/2025] plaintiff, which not only defeats the purpose of a fair trial but is not permissible in law. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from material irregularity and is liable to be set aside.
9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sardarshahar, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.150/2021 [104/2013] titled as Peermahant Pashupatinath vs. Municipal Council & Ors. is quashed and set aside. The trial court is hereby directed to decide the matter afresh, after providing all the respective parties a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard, and to pass a speaking order in accordance with settled legal principles
10. No order as to cost.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J 40-Anil/-
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:40:30 PM) (Downloaded on 11/10/2025 at 12:32:08 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)