\Jw HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.7435 of 2011 {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. A.K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6, on advance copy. Singte Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER V (9—12-201 1) . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 6-4- 2011 passed by the District Judge, Ambikapur, in Civil Suit No.6-A/2007, whereby the Court below has dismissed the application filed on behalf of / PETITIONER/: Naveen Chandra Tiwari, S/o Shri (Plaintiff) Nandkishore Tiwari, aged about 35 years, Caste Brahman, R/o Nagar Ramanujganj, Tahsil Ramanujganj, at present Godhanpur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS/: 1. Surajdev, S/o Ramkaran (Defendants) Vishwakarma, aged about 40 years, 2. Krishna Dev, S/o Ramkaran Vishwakarma, aged about 34 years, 3. Rajdev, S/o Ramkaran Vishwakarma, aged about 42 years, 4. ,lndradev, S/o Ramkaran ' Vishwakarma, aged about 37 years All R/o Mohalla Mayapur, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 5. Snehlata Singh, W/o Shri Om Prakash Singh, R/o Mohalla Mayapur, P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 6. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Sarguja, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ‘47 the petitioner herein/plaintiff, under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC for framing of additionai issues. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint, copy of issues framed including additional issues dated 4-9-201 O and copy of the application. 3. Admittedly, out of thirteen issues, some issues framed by the Court below-are unnecessary like issue No.6 which is contrary to issue No.7 and have been framed without considering the pleadings of the parties. 4. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to me appropriate application for recasting of entire issues. 5. The Court is required to frame issues only on the basis ofsubstantive allegation made by one party and denied by the other party, and also necessary for decision of the case. Only allegation and denial of facts are not sufficient for framing of issues. With this observation, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The Court itself is required to examine pleadings of the parties and frame necessary issues required for just decision of the case. No order as to costs. I 6. Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sd/- ‘ T.P. Sharma ”judge Soma