IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.539 of 2008 Suraj Sah, son of Maithur Sah, resident of village Singhiya, PO & PS Singhiya, District Samastipur ......Plaintiff- Petitioner Versus 1. Chandrashekhar Singh 2. Lal Bahadur Singh 3. Upendra Narayan Singh 4. Ram Japo Singh - All sons of late Bashishtha Narain Singh, all residents of village Singhiya, PO & PS Singhiya, District Samastipur ......Defendant 1st parties-Opp.1st Parties ----------- 06- 21/10/2011 Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh for the petitioner. He seeks permission to expunge respondent nos. 5 to 17. As prayed, respondent nos. 5 to 17 are permitted to be expunged at the risk of the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 20.2.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rosera (Sub Judge II) in Title Suit no.40/81, whereby the plaintiff’s prayer for framing one more issue, consequent of addition of one of the reliefs, has been rejected. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of valid service of notice, opposite party 2 nos. 1 to 4 have not entered appearance before us. It appears that the plaintiff’s application for amendment of the relief portion was allowed by order dated 22.1.2008. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application that, in view of the amendment so allowed by order dated 22.1.2008, one more issue may be added. The same has been rejected by the impugned order. We are of the view that the learned trial court should adopt a liberal approach in framing issues so that the parties have opportunity to thrash out all issues which in their view arise for consideration in the suit. A issue does not Per Se mean that the same has been allowed in favour of one or the other party. It only enables them to highlight the issue for consideration of the court. I would, therefore, prefer to disagree with the order of the learned trial court. 4. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed, the impugned order dated 20.2.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, (Sub Judge II), Rosera, in Title Suit No.40 of 1981, is hereby set aside. The learned trial court is directed to frame an additional issue as prayed for by the plaintiff. mrl ( S K Katriar, J. ) 3