THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 2630 of 2011 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 608 of 2010 in O.S. No. 100 of 2008, filed by the petitioners praying the Court to frame additional issue as regards the genuineness of the sale deed dated 28.11.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submitted that the respondent-plaintiff have claimed the relief of injunction based on the sale deed dated 28.11.2001, alleged to have been executed by Smt. Seethamma. He contends that since Smt. Seethamma died on 15.12.2000, the question of her executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioners-defendants on 28.11.2001 does not arise. Therefore, the Court below ought to have framed additional issue as regards the genuineness of the sale deed dated 28.11.2001, particularly when it is the case of the petitioners- defendants that the said sale deed is a fabricated document. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments, placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Thota Rambabu @ Ramu v. Churukuri Venkateswara Rao[1], Sunkara Srilakshmi v. Sudireddy Sarojini Devi[2] and Lingu Savithri v. P. Sahadev[3], and prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and perused the order under revision. There is no doubt that framing of issues is one of the important steps in adjudication of suits. When an assertion made by one party is denied by the other, an issue in that regard should be framed by the Court. Though the petitioners disputed the genuineness of the sale deed dated 28.11.2001, based on which the respondent-plaintiff founded the suit, the fact remains, in the suit, respondent-plaintiff claimed only the relief injunction simplicitor. In a suit for injunction, the Court does not go into title dispute, though it may give an incidental finding in that regard at the time of final disposal of the suit. While granting injunction, the Court is only concerned with the question as to who is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Since the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff is one for injunction simplicitor, no exception can be taken to the order under revision passed by the Court below, refusing to frame additional issue as regards the genuineness of the sale deed dated 28.11.2001 as prayed for by the petitioners-defendants. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P. and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Dated: 21st July, 2011 KSR [1] 2005 (5) ALT 278 (DB) [2] 2003 (2) ALT 159 [3] 2006 (2) ALT 1