IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15th) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2208 of 2010 Between: Yasin Abdullah … Petitioner And: Dayaram Sankla … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C R P No.2208 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.03.2010 in IA No.153 of 2010 in OS No.4494 of 2006 on the file of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed under Order XIV Rule 5, read with Section 151 CPC for recasting issues, was dismissed. 2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. Recording of the evidence is concluded and the matter stood posted for hearing the arguments. The plaintiff’s side arguments were also heard and the matter was coming for defendant’s arguments. At that stage, the defendant filed IA No.153 of 2010 seeking additional issue be framed pertaining to the jurisdiction. According to the defendant, the suit is not maintainable and the Court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiff has to avail remedy under the Rent Control Act. The plaintiff on the other hand would contend that the plaint schedule building was constructed in the year 1999 and as such it is exempted from the provisions of the A.P. Buildings, Lease, Rent Control Act 1960. 4 . An averment is made to that effect in the plaint. The defendant in his written statement disputed the same and putting the plaintiff to strict proof of the said allegation. However, no specific issue was framed pertaining to the aspect of jurisdiction and the maintainability of the suit. When the defendant filed the present application for framing of additional issue in that regard, the trial Court dismissed the same observing that the issue No.1 would cover the aspect of jurisdiction also. Issue No.1 is coached in broad terms as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule building. The aspect of maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit are not specifically covered by issue No.1. Inasmuch as specific issue has arisen from the averment in the plaint and written statement touching upon the question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit, it is only just and proper that separate issue is to be framed in that regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that the evidence pertaining to the proposed additional issue was already placed on record and no further evidence is called for. 5. In the circumstances, duly recording the said submission, the proposed additional issue as set out in the petition is permitted to be framed. As entire evidence is already on record, the trial Court is directed to proceed further in the matter from the stage that it was left and dispose of the same. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and IA No.153 of 2010 stands allowed. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.02.2010 Note: Issue CC in 3 days. (BO) bss