HIGH COURTOFTHE CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR W.P.(227lNo.2741/2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Mahant Govind Sharan Das, Sarvarakar/Trustee Nagridas Temple Trust, Amin Para, Raipur through : to the Aam Mukhtiyar Shyam Sunder Das 'Saurabh' Guru Sarvarakar Manant Govind Sharan Das, aged about 34 years, R/o Sarswati Chowk Purani Basti, Ramchandra Swam i Nagridas Temple, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Shrj Ramchandraswami Nagrl Das Temple, Through : S.K. Agrawal, S/o Late K.L. Agarwal, aged about 70 years, R/o Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTECLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTgON OF INDiA Appearance: Shri S.C. Verma, Counsei for the petitioner. Shri Kshitij Sharma, Counsel forthe respondent. ORDER (08.07.2009) SUNILKUSVSARSENHA.J. Heard. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03.04.2008, passed by the IX Additiona! Dlstrict Judge, Raipur in M.J.C. No.29/2007, the petitioner, a party to the proceeding under Section 26 of the C.G. Public Trusts Act, 1951, hasfiledthiswritpetition. A perusal of the order wouid show that during the pendency of the said proceeding, the petitioner moved an application under Order 14 Ruie 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing two additional 'issues. The aforesaid application was opposed on the ground that in a W.R.(227) No.2741/2008 proceeding under Section 26 of the sald Act, the scop'e is Slmited; therefore, no such issues are required to be framed. ! have heard learned counse! for the parties and have also perused the records ofthewrit petition. On 16.09.2008, the petitloner has filed additiohai documents aiong wlth I.A. No.02/2008. The copy of issues already framed by the concemed Court has a!so been filed. A perusal ofthe Issues, aiready framed, wouid show that varsous issues In retation to the facts brought before the Court have been framed and in light of that and also in ilght of the unspecified or un-particular ailegations, atleast, proposed issue No.2 cannot be framed. So far as proposed Issue No.1 is concerned, it Is a necessary consequence on proved facts in the case and such issue is aiso not required to be framed. The Court has to frame an issue, on which, a right decisiQn of the case appearsto depend and not that which may iead to uncertalnty. Not oniy this, theremvst be materia! with particufars to frame the issues, which are real questlons of facts or iaw the parties are at variance. In the considered opinion ofthis Court, the learned Court below committed no ilfegaiity or irregujarity, while dismissing ttie said appSlcation filed by the petitioner, warranting interference by this Court. In view of the above, the petition is Siable to be dismissed and is accordingiy dlsmissed at the admission stage itself. Hov^ever, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise his grievances before the concerned Court In the appropriate manner In accordance wlth iavv. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna