THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.748 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dated 20.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.184 of 2009 in O.S.No.76 of 2006 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Parkal. O.S.No.76 of 2006 is filed by the petitioners for recovery of possession of the suit schedule land and for permanent injunction. After filing the written statement by the respondents, the Court below framed the following issues: a) Are the plaintiffs entitled to recover the suit schedule property from the possession of defendants 1 and 2? b) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? c) To what relief? Nearly two years after filing the written statement, without filing any rejoinder, the petitioners filed I.A.No.184 of 2009 under Order XIV Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying the Court below to frame an additional issue, which is to the following effect: “Whether the house bearing No.1-06 existing on the part of the suit land originally belonged to the father of defendant No.1 and in turn whether defendant No.1 inherited any right of ownership over the said house No.1-06 through her father.” The Court below by recording a finding that having regard to the pleadings on record, there is no need to frame such additional issue to decide the lis, has rejected I.A.No.184 of 2009 by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that having regard to the pleadings on record and when once it is stated by the respondents that there is a house bearing No.1-06 in the part of the suit schedule land, it is necessary to frame such additional issue. I have perused the copies of the plaint and the written statement. In the plaint, there is no reference to the house bearing No.1-06 at all. The petitioners did not file any rejoinder to the written statement. However, the issue, which is sought to be framed by the petitioners as additional issue, is absolutely not relevant for the purpose of deciding O.S.No.76 of 2006. In that view of matter, the Court below rightly rejected I.A.No.184 of 2009 in O.S.No.76 of 2006 and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th APRIL, 2010. kvni