y BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC.I NC^a:? /2007 PETITIONER ^ ^ ' Rajendra Shankar Shukla, aged ^5^^ ^r abouf 67 years, son of Ram Avfar ^•-•^.y-"")/ Shukla, Advocate, R/o. Malviya ^>l^-:^..--' ^ .-. .--'.'"'' -^•^"\^>" Road, Raipur (C.G.) ,,-^y" RESPONDENTS "</•' S?"1 ^^ ^VERSUS 1. Balram Das, age 13 years, 2.' Harish Kumar, age 8 years Both are sons of Bishan Das Bajaj, minors, through - natural guardian Father Bishan Das. / 3. Bishan Das, son of Melumal Bajaj, businessman. Respondents No.1 to 3 are the resident of Tikarapara, Raipur (C.G.) ^-" 4. Ghanshyam Das, age 65 years, / son of Kanhaiyalal Aggrawal 5. Smt. Shanti Devi, age 65 years, wife of Shri Ghanshyam Das Aggrawal Respondents No.4 and 5 are the' resident of B-3, Ravinagar, Raipur (C.G.) 5 5A Rampal Aggrawal, son of Yaduwanshi Lal Aggrawal / 5-B Smt. Shanti Bai Aggrawal, wife of Rampal Aggrawal Both are resident of Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) 6. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Distt. Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN FORM OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER FORM OF APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OFTHECASE ^- ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PETlTtQNER RESPONDENTS Writ Petitton (C»No. 7326 / 2007 Rajendra Shankar Shukla Versus Balram Das and othere. Shri G.S. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Miss Veena Nair, counse! for the petitfoner. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent No.6. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTnTUTION OF INDIA ORM.ORDER (09.09.2010) Heard. (2) tn this petitioR under Article 227 of the Constitutton of India, ftie petitioner/plaintiffis chatlengii^ the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 06-10-2007, rejecting his application ynder Order 14 Rute 5 of C.P.C. for framing three additional isajes. (3) The petitioner/plaintiff has fited the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. (4) The proposed additional issue are (a) whether the mutation without notice to the ptaintiff is ill^al, (b) wheUier the plainttff is stil! in possession of the suit land, (c) whether on 26-04-1997 the actuat market vaiue of the land was 4,20,000/-. (5) The trial Court has rejected the applteatimi on the ground that there is no need to franne additionat issue No.1 because mutation does not confer titie and when the Court shall uttlmatety decide the title, the y mutation of the name of the oartv would not be relevant. Prooosecl \' ^. ^ 2,- issue No.2 has been found to be inctuded in ttie issire No.3 already framed by the Court and the proposed issire No.3 about market price of the !and is alresKly includwt in issue No.2 eartier framed in the suit. (6) Leamed counsel for the petitioner woutd submit ttiat the finding to the effect that proposed issue No. 2 & 3 are included in the eariier framed issues are nrt correct, therefore the impugned orcter deserves to be interfered with. (7) After going through the rword and the impugned order, this Court is of the opinton ttiat the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference. The triat Court is of the opiniwi that the proposed issu^ No. 2 & 3 are already covered in the eariier framed tesues No. 3 & 2 and there is no need of framing sicldJtiona! issues. Neejless to say ttiat when the trial Court is of the opinion that the proposed issues are alreacty covered, the p^itioner/pteintiff would be at tiberty to adduce evidence on tfte addtttonal proposed issues No. 2 & 3 as in the opiniwi of the trial Court those issues are already covered. (8) Wtth the above oteervation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^.