IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1662 of 2009 1. AMIRUZZAMAN @ MD. AMIR, 2. Wahid Alam @ Md. Wahid, 3. Md. Abdullah, All sons of Late Badiuzzaman, resident of Sadudagar, Mohalla – Loharpatti, Road Ward No. 12, P.S. and District – Kishanganj, …………….. Defendants-Petitioners Versus 1. NANIK CHAND BINAKIA, 2. Raj Kumar Binakia, Both son of Late Amirchand Binakia, resident of Kishanganj Town Ward No. 15, Sonarpatti Road, P.S. – and District – Kishanganj…. ………… Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. 3. Masoda Perween, 4. Tahura Perween, 5. Sabahat Bano, 6. Zarmused Fatima, 7. Noor Saba Perween, 8. Ruhizzaman, All daughters of Late Badiuzzaman, residents of Saudagar Mohalla – Loharpatt Road, Ward No. 12, P. S. & District – Kishanganj, 9. Narain Prasad Gupta, son of Late Ram Narayan Gupta, resident of Loharpatti Road, P.S. - & District – Kishanganj…. ………. Defendants - Opposite Parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Rashid Alam, Advocate. For the O.P.Nos.1 & 2: M/s Ramesh Kumar Agrawal & Anupa Nand Jha, Advocates ----------- 5 13.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as opposite party nos. 1 and 2. The defendants petitioners are aggrieved by order 2 dated 27.07.2009 passed by the Additional Munsif I, Kishanganj in Eviction Suit No. 01/2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below was fully empowered under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Code”) to make amendment in the issues of the suit or frame additional issues at any stage prior to the pronouncement of the judgment and decree. It is further submitted that the issues, as contained in annexure 3, which is the application of this petitioner before the court concerned for the said purpose, are necessary to be framed. From perusal of annexure 3, it appears that five additional issues have been suggested by the defendants-petitioners. Learned counsel for the appearing opposite parties submitted that the whole ;purpose of the defendants- petitioners is only to some how delay the disposal of the suit, inasmuch the issues were framed in the year 2003 itself and at the time of passing of the impugned order, the suit concerned was posted for argument. The defendants- petitioners never raised these issues either at the time of framing of the issues in the suit or on any other earlier occasion. When the suit concerned was at the stage of 3 attaining its finality, the aforesaid issues were raised by them, which obviously was a dilatory tactics. It is further submitted that the petitioners are having habit of challenging the orders of the court below by way of filing Civil Revisions before this Court. On several occasions such Civil Revisions had been dismissed or disposed of. Learned counsel has produced copies of the aforesaid orders at the time of hearing of this case. In one of the Civil Revision a Bench of this Court had observed that the eviction suit is of the year 2000 and is being delayed on one pretext or the other. It is also apparent that earlier when the defendants-petitioners came before this Court in Civil Revision No. 291 of 2004, this Court directed the trial court to proceed in the suit and it would not adjourn the case on flimsy grounds. It has further been observed in Civil Revision No. 986 of 2005 that the defendants delayed the matter sometimes on the ground of orders of this Court and sometimes on the ground of the non-existent orders of the District Judge. The aforesaid order was challenged at the Apex Court also and the Apex Court by order dated 10.02.2006 had dismissed the S.L.P.(Civil) No. 1065 of 2006. However, liberty was granted to the defendants- 4 petitioners to agitate the point involved in that case in appeal, if so advised. The court below upon hearing the rival submissions has come to the conclusion that the eviction suit is of the year 2000 and should be disposed of expeditiously. However, it has also observed that under the provisions contained in Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code, even if at the time of deciding the suit the court finds, on the submissions made on behalf of the parties, that in the interest of justice, an issue or issues should be framed, then it can frame such issues and decide the matter after recording a finding on those issues. The court below has passed the impugned order with the aforesaid observations. Thus, I do not find any error committed by the court concerned warranting interference of this Court in its discretionary civil revisional jurisdiction. As a result, the Civil Revision is dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)