Mr. B.P. Sherma, Advo for The petitioner. Heard on admission. r The pefifioner by This p ifion under Ari‘icle 227 of fhe Consfifufion of India has duesfioned The Iega , propriety and validify of ihe order dafed 9.1.2008 (Annexure P-7) wher by iearnzd Dis‘i'ricf Judge has rejected The applicafion of fhe pefifioner fil d under Order 14 Ruie 5 read wifh Seaion 151 of ihe CPC (Annexure P-5) wh eby The prayer of fhe pefifioner for framing oddifionai issue has been rejecf d. Learned counsel for Th peTiTioner relying upon The judgmenT in The moTTerof Makhon Lol Benal ck ersus Moms Bhunia and ofhers reporTed in (2001) 2 SCC 652 confended oT The sToge of framing issues is an imporTonT sToge of Trial. The doTe fixed for seTTlemenT of issues is, Therefore, o daTe fixed for hearing. Scheme of Order 14 CFC dealing wiTh The seTTlemenT of issues shows ThaT on issue aris s when o moTeriol proposiTion of facT or law is c l g 22 0.1826 of 2008 PETITIONER ran Lahoi'i,§ wife of 5hri Chandrakishore (Defendant) aged abbuf 42 years, Occupa'rion: House ife, residém 6f L.I.G. 36, Secfor-l, Shank r Nagar', Raipur'. Vs RESPONDENT Manda Singh Gm, son of Lafe Avfar 5ingh 6i”, (Plaintiff) aged out 4O year-s, Occupation-Business, residen of Secwr—Z, House No.C/92, Devendm Nagar’ aipur, P.5. Devendm Nagar', Raipur 27.03.2008 WW,W,W WW ta 200 mm (W) WWW WWW \J: \ > wwwwm WWW %aafmm%a1 affirmed by one par'fy and deniéd by The {imam Each maferial proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other shouid form The subjec‘l' of a disfmcf issue An obhgahon Is cos on the courf 1‘0 read The piamf/pe‘rmon and The written sfa‘remenf/counfer if any and Then deTermme WITh The assisTanoe of The counsei for The par-Tiers, maTerIai proposmon of facT or of iaw on which The parTies are aT varian In The insTanf case, The peTiTianer has ‘specificaiiy'pl‘eaded in his wriTTe sTaTemenT ThaT The dispuTed properTy was purchased ofTer Taking loan from he 5ToTe Bank of India, Raipur The some is morTgoged wiTh The said bank an Therefore, The suiT is noT mainTainable in View of SecTion 23 of The Indian ConTracT ACT. However, no issue has been framed by The Triai courT on he béis of The above pleadings by The peTiTioner/defendanT. AfTer hearing ieorned cou el for The peTiTioner and afTer perusing The pleadings of The respective porT esl The insTanT peTiTion is aiiowed and The DisTricT Judge, Roipur is direcTed o frame Issue No.4A as under:- “mm mamea‘lammas WWHET i" i Since This order is passed ‘ThouT naTice To The respondenT/piainTiff, iT shall be open To The respondenT/plainTiff Ta approach This CourT in case he is aggrieved by This order. Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra V Judge vv e . e