HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4836 of 2008 ORDER: The order under challenge in this revision is the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur in I.A. No.1794 of 2008 in O.S. No.30 of 2005 wherein the request, for recasting the earlier issues framed, was rejected. The suit in O.S. No.30 of 2005 was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into between the respondent-plaintiff and the 1st petitioner-1st defendant. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying having executed the agreement of sale dated 17.11.2000 or tohave received the sale consideration. Subsequently a petition was filed seeking amendment of the written statement by adding certain paragraphs thereto. The said amendment was allowed and, on an amended written statement being filed, the respondent-plaintiff filed his rejoinder. Even before the written statement was amended, the Court below had framed certain issues. After the written statement was amended, the 1st petitioner-1st defendant, while requesting that the issues framed earlier be recasted, proposed four additional issues. The Court below rejected the said request holding that the issues framed and the proposed issues were one and the same; the proposed issues 1 to 3 were a condition precedent for determining issue No.1 as already settled; and the proposed issues 1 to 3 were matters of argument based on the oral evidence adduced by parties. The issues framed earlier read as under: 1. Whether the suit agreement of sale dated 17.11.2000 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the primary relief of specific performance of the suit agreement of sale or alternatively for the refund of earnest money with interest as claimed? 3. To what relief? The proposed issues, which the petitioner sought to be recasted, read as under: 1. Whether 1st defendant has got exclusive right and title to execute the suit agreement of sale dated 17.11.2000 in faovur of plaintiff? 2. Whether the wife of 1st defendant and three daughters of the 1st defendant (Including 2nd defendant) have got any shares or interest in the plaint schedule property? 3. Whether the Non-Judicial Stamp paper dated 17.11.2000 which was purchased by 1st defendant on behalf of Dondapati Nageswararao at the instance of plaintiff was materially altered by the plaintiff by striking of in the stamp paper and as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable under law? 4. Whether the suit agreement of sale dated 17.11.2000 which is alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant alone in favour of plaintiff is true valid and enforceable under law? As rightly held by the Court below, the proposed issues 1 to 3 would have to be examined for deciding issue No.1 as already settled by the Court earlier. The order of the Court below, in holding that proposed issues 1 to 4 fell within the ambit of the earlier settled issues 1 and 2, does not suffer from any patent illegality necessitating interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 01.07.2010 MRKR