CRP 400/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. RP Kakoti, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AK Dutta, learned co unsel appearing for the petitioners. The order I propose to pass in this case, in my considered opinion, notice to th e respondents is not essential. The petitioner as plaintiff filed a title suit in the court of learned court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sivasagar against the respondents/defendants as they had been trying to forcefully and illegally block the suit road by putting fenci ng and digging the suit road. After filing of the suit, the respondents/defendants contested the suit by filin g written statement. Thereafter, issues were farmed by the trial court. However , the petitioner once again filed an application amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by the court. After the amendment of the plaint, the respondents als o filed their additional written statement. Thereafter, the learned court below fixed the case on 14.2.05 for framing additional issues. The plaintiffs’ advocat e filed the additional issues in the court on 2.3.05 which was received in the c ourt. The court after adjourning the case for framing the additional issues on various dates, finally on 2.3.05 passed the following order: 2.3.05. Ld. Ad. for the plaintiff submits additional issues. Defendants also submit is sues. Additional issues is framed. Fix 4.4.05 for S.B.P.H. Subsequently on 4.4.05 the learned court below passed the order indicati ng therein that the issues have been framed by the court. The learned counsel fo r the petitioners submits that after the said order, the petitioners rightly pre sumed that additional issues have been framed by the court. The issues suggeste d by the petitioner before the court are as follows: 1. Whether the fencing erected by the defendants on the suit road and t he portion of the suit road dug by the defendants are causing inconvenience in t he ingress and egress of the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for removing of the fencing and for filing of the drain dug by the defendants causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs in their ingress and egress of the suit road.? At the time of final hearing of the case it was found by the plaintiff/p etitioner that those additional issues were not available in the record. Accord ingly, plaintiff filed an application for framing additional issues. By the imp ugned order dated 9.9.11, the learned trial court below rejected the prayer for framing additional issues. However, in the said order, the learned trial court specifically ordered that additional issues No.1 & 2 were same as main Issue Nos . 7 & 9 which have been already framed by the court and those additional issues would be covered while discussing main issue Nos. 7 & 9. In view of the above, since the learned trial court has already observed that the additional issues, which were sought to be framed by the petitioner, w ould be covered while discussing the main issue Nos.7 & 9, I propose to dispose of the revision petitioner with the direction to the trial court below to specif ically discuss the aforesaid additional issue Nos.1 & 2 while deciding the Issue Nos. 7 & 9 respectively. With the above direction, this revision petition stands disposed of. Send a copy of this order to the learned court below, immediately.