”yaw? ‘ 0g Hum coma? w.P.;2273 OF CHHATTIsGARH No. 2705 OF 2009 BILAsPUR K9 ’ f I ‘ a PETITmmER PMMNHFF Prakashchand Dhandore 3% I DEFENDANT Pradaep Kumar Jathwa RE8PONDENT W ORDER N k Post for Q, ~7-2009 l\‘. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge HIGH COEJRT OF CHHATTI$GARE3 BILASPUR W.P.{227) N9. 2705 OF 2009 PETITIONER Prakashchaild Dhaudcra, son of PLAINTIFF Tarachand Dhandore, agsd 35 years, r‘ésidellt of near Sahu Sadan, Ke1abadi, Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENT Pradeap Kumar Jathwa, aged DEFENDANT about 48 yaars, son of late Lalji Bhai, msidsnt of aear Sahu Sadan, Kelabadi, Burg, Tahsil and Distt. (CG) Shri H.B. Agrawal,Sr. Adv. with Shri Pank‘aj Agrawa, Adv. for the patitioner. s3: HaN’BLE smu Jusncr: N.K. AGARWAL ORDER (2-7-2009) H€ard on admission. 2. Fading aggrievod by the order dated 15—4-09 passed by the 9th Addii'iohal District Judge (FTC), Durg in Civil Suit No. 5—A/2007, whereby the learned trial coult suo moto after going through the record on the date of judgment, amended and named additional 1S S11€ . 3. The main contention of Shri Agrawal is that the trial Court can only amend / frame additionai issues on application filed by the pames in the suit. The court at its own cannot amend or frame any issue, that too on the date of judgment and, therefore, the order is bad, and deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that no such order of re-casting of issues and naming of additional issues can be passed by the Court behind the back of the partiesiwithout healing parties in this regard. 4. Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. reads thus:'— “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 tit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determim'ng the mafters in controversy baween the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) the Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues fhat appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.” 5. Avbare perilsal of Order 14 Rule 5 of C,P.C. goes to show that the court may at any lime before passing a decree amend the issues or £rame additional issues which are necessary for determining the controversy between the parties and also the Court may at any time before passing a decree strike out any issue that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced, and therefore, it is not correct to say that the court has no power to strike out any issues which appear to it to be wrongly framed, to amend. or frame additional issues without hearing the parties or Without preferring an application by any party on this behalf. In my opinion, there is no illegality or infirmity committed by Triai Court leading to manifest injustice to the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. K 5. Therefore, in my considered opinion, this petition has no merit. The same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, it is directed that if the petitioner plaintiff tiles an application under Oyder 14NRule 5 of C.P.C. to show that in the facts and circnmstancesbf the case, any issue amended, modified, deleted or framed on the date of judgment by the Court, is not proper, then the Court shall decide the same in accordance with law after hearing both the parties and, thereafter the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law-as early as possible.x , sw- .N.K. AgraWal Judge