THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3994 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 24.07.2010, in I.A.No.107 of 2010 in O.S.No.316 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to recast the issues as mentioned in the petition, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court to recast the issues as follows: “1. Whether the defendant has perfected his rights over suit property under plea of adverse possession as contended in his written statement? 2. Whether building approved plan secured by defendant No.1 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the building approval plan of defendant No.1 is obtained by playing fraud against the Municipality?" That petition was dismissed on the ground that the proposed issues are unnecessary and have no bearing on the suit. 4. Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. provides for amendment, addition, deletion or striking out issues. The primary object of the Rule is to ensure determination of all the questions in controversy between the parties. In other words, the enabling provision is intended to do justice between the parties by not leaving controversial points undecided or undetermined. Framing of proper and necessary issues basing on pleadings has very important bearing on the trial and decision of a case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Juvva Seetha Punyeswari vs. Sanadi Muni Ratnam[1], wherein it is held thus: “THE object underlying the framing of issues is too well known. Issues in a suit arise out of assertion by one party and denial by the other. The exercise made, in this regard, would not only help the court, in regulating the proceedings, but also would enable the parties to point their attention to the actual controversy, as is reflected in the issues. The requirement under Order XIV cpc that the judgment must cover every issue underlies the importance of the same. In most of the cases, the controversy that is reflected in the issues that are framed, at the initial stage, would continue till the disposal of the suit. However, in certain cases, as and how the suit proceeds from one stage to another, the area of controversy gets altered. While some of the issues, which have already been framed, may become irrelevant or obsolete, necessity may arise for framing of additional issues. It is obviously for this reason that the Parliament had empowered the courts under Rule 5 of Order XIV CPC, to frame additional issues at any stage of the suit, till the judgment is rendered. Unlike in other steps, framing of issues, or for that matter, additional issues, is basically a task to be undertaken by the court. Even where the parties do not file an application, or insist on framing of any issue, or additional issue, the court would be competent and in some cases, under obligation to frame the issues, as per its understanding of the controversy, between the parties.” There is no doubt that when there is a factual controversy involved in the suit to be decided, necessary issues have to be framed. When a fact has been asserted by one party and denied or disputed by the other party, then an issue has to be framed. Simply because the defendant has claimed a plea of adverse possession, that cannot be a ground to frame an issue, unless it is controverted by the plaintiff. It seems the petitioner/plaintiff has not filed any additional pleadings after the filing of the written statement. Therefore, the question of framing of issues as proposed by the petitioner does not arise. The decision referred to above has no application to the present facts of the case. Furthermore, the present petition appears to have been filed with a view to drag on the proceedings, because when the suit is coming up for arguments, the present petition to recast the issues is filed. 6. The suit is filed for declaration of title and for grant of perpetual injunction. In a suit for declaration of title and injunction, it is for the plaintiff to establish his right, title, interest and also possession over the suit schedule property. The weakness or lacunae of defendant cannot be taken advantage by the plaintiff. The plaintiff must stand or fall on his own legs by adducing necessary evidence to succeed in the Court. Therefore, the proposed issues to be framed are unnecessary for the dispute in controversy. 7. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no pleading of obtaining an approved plan from the Municipality for making certain constructions and also there is no pleading that such a plan was obtained by playing fraud. In the absence of any pleading, framing or recasting of issues even by this Court does not arise. Therefore, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 14, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3994 OF 2010 Between: Yerikala Peddakka .....PETITIONER AND K. Ganganna and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3994 OF 2010 December 14, 2010 [1] 2008 (1) ALT 314