IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.750 of 2009 SUBHASH KUMAR … … Petitioner Versus SAVITRI DEVI & ORS … Opp. Parties For the petitioner: Shri Yogendra Pd. Sinha ----------- 2. 19.5.2009 Heard This revision petition is directed against the order in Miscellaneous Appeal passed by the District Judge of Siwan restoring T.S. No. 105 of 1992 which was dismissed on account of default due to non- appearance of the plaintiff on the date the suit was fixed for framing of issues. It is true that Order 14 Rule 1(5) of the C.P.C. requires the court to hear the parties on what material proposition of fact or law the parties are at variance and thereafter to frame issues but it may not be ignored that the suit was not fixed for hearing after framing of the issues as per the provision of the C.P.C. so as to deciding the issues. Primarily, it is the duty of the court to recast or frame the issue on “reading the plaint and written statement” of the parties. Might be that discretion is cast 2 on the court to hear the parties, that way I do not see any illegality or material irregularity, much less, any error in application of jurisdiction more so when there is concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the two courts. The revision petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)