Q27 wk AT BILASPUR w. P. I g LNo. LQ$§ ‘vvm‘ WEKJ Petitioners Wmwwg : 1. Vinay Kumar Singh, Aged about 34 years, Advocate 2. / Vipin Kumar Singh, about 32 years, Advocate, Both are sons of Shri Narayan Singh cultivators and residents of Jagtakapa, Tahsil Mungeh‘, Distt. Bilaspur— Versus (C.G.) Smt. Shiv Kanti Bai Wd/o Late Deep Singh, about 58 years, R/o Village Jagtakapa, Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur~ (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through — Collector, Bilaspur—(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ J a PETITIONERS PLAINTRFFS Versus RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Shn KA Aansan S! Advocate wrth Shn Vlpln singh counsel for the petitioners $hn R R Smm, counse! tot respondent No.1. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal P L for the State/respondent No 2 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTI'UTION OF INDIA Smt. Shiv Kanti Bai and another. O R A L O R D E R (22.03.2610) v yr The triak Court has rejected ptaintiffs’ appiication under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. fer deletion of one issue and framing of additional issues. The plaintiffs have tiled a suit for declaration of title and r permanent injunction on the basis of sale-deed dated 11-064 976. The plaintiffs have raised a plea of adverse possession in para 21 of the ‘ ' ,l l piaint. (2) The defendant No.1 has denied the plea of adverse possession in her written statement. (3) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has framed issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation even though no such plea either expressly or impliedly has been raised in the written statement. He also submits that issue regarding adverse possession " as also three other issues proposed in his application under Order 14 / zRule 5 read wrth Section151 of C P C (Annexure P18) ought to have r been framed by the tnal Court / @@ (4) , Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the leamed counsel for the petitioneru Accbrding , to the respondents the trial Court is empowered to frame an issue ,r regarding p!ea of limitation as the said issue is a pure question of taw. {5) , Order 14 Ruie 1 provides that issues arise when the material proposition of fact or law is aftirmed by one party and denied by the other. Order 14 Rule 3 makes provision regarding the materiatsrfrom which issues may be framed. Clause (c) of Rule 3 of Order 14 says that the contents of documents produoed by either party can be lookedru‘ ' into by the Court while framing issues. {6) On perusal of the materials placed before this Court by both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant has notrra‘ised any plea regarding limitation in his written statement. The trial Court has thus committed an error of jurisdiction by not accepting the _ petitioners’ prayer for deletion of the issue No.3 regarding the suit being barred by limitation. (7) in the subject application under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for modification of the issues framed earlier by l _ framing four additional issues 0n peruse! of the proposed issues in Annexure Pl8 it appears to the Court that the plea regarding adverse . possession has been asserted in the plaint and has been denied in the written statement and this appears to be the bone of contention between the parties in the suit. This Court is thus satisfied that issue regarding adverse possession should have been framed by the trial _ i Court If this issue is framed the other proposed issues wouid be (Impliedly covered as issues need not be framed on all facts atleged in the plaint and denied in the written statement it is only those material facts which are necessary to be proved by the plaintiff in order to claim relief for which issues are required to be framed. it is thus directed that the issue regarding limitation should be dropped from the issues and t the issue regarding adverse possession should be framed by the trial V Court for a complete and effective trial of the suit. (a) The writ petition is thus dispmed of in the above terms. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra ’l Judge :i‘ W, *WH