2018 C L C 1004
[Balochistan (Turbat Bench)]
Before Abdullah Baloch, J
AMEER BAKHSH ---Petitioner
Versus
ASSA and 2 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No. (T) 38 of 2017, decided on 15th January, 2018.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O. XIV, Rr. 1 & 5 ---Suit for declaration --- Additional issues --- Framing of --- Scope---
During recording of his evidence Plaintiff moved an application for framing of additional
issues which was dismissed ---Validity ---Trial Court framed issues ---Thereafter plaintiff
produced three witnesses and was directed to produce his remaining witnesses ---Plaintiff did
not disclose any reasonable ground for amendments or framing of additional issues necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the p arties ---Plaintiff remained silent for
one and a half year and did not raise any objection on the issues framed by the Trial Court ---
Impugned order passed by the Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity ---
Revision was dismissed in li mine in circumstances.
Niaz Muhammad, for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th December, 2017.
ORDER
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---This order disposes of Civil Revision Petition No.38 of
2017 filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 4 th October, 2017 (hereinafter referred as, "impugned order") passed by the learned
Additional Qazi Turbat (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court") whereby the application under Order XIV, Rule 5, C.P.C. filed for framing/correction of additional issues was
dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a
suit for declaration and permanent injunction and correction of entries against the defendants/respondents in the Court of Additional Qazi, Turbat, which was contested by the defendants/ respondents by means of filing written statement, wherein denied the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
3. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues
and thereafter the part ies have submitted their list of witnesses; that the petitioner/plaintiff
produced three witnesses as PWs -1, 2 and 3 and the case was fixed for further recording of
evidence of petitioner; that meanwhile, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application under
Order XIV, Rules 1, 5 and section 151 of C.P.C. for correction and framing of additional
issues before the learned trial Court; that after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 4th Octobe r, 2017; that the
impugned order suffers from misreading and misappreciation of law; that the petitioner was deprived from his legal rights as under provision of Order XIV, Rules 1 and 5, C.P.C., Court at any stage can amend/frame additional issues for jus t decision of the case on merits, but this
important provision of law was not considered by the learned trial Court and dismissed the application of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner, which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice with the petitioner; that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, which reveals that
the suit for declaration, injunction and correction of mutation entries filed by the petitione rs
against the respondent before the learned trial Court in the year 2014, which was contested by the respondents/defendants by means of filing written statement, wherein denied the claim of the petitioner and Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned t rial Court framed as many as 9
issues for just decision of the case on merit on 25th February, 2016. It is pertinent to mention here that thereafter the petitioner in support of their claim produced as many as three witnesses and directed to produce its re maining witnesses.
5. The perusal of application filed under Order XIV, Rules 1 and 5, C.P.C. of petitioner
does not disclose any reasonable ground to be necessary for amendments or framing of additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the
parties shall be so made or framed. Even otherwise, after lapse of one and half year, the petitioners kept silent and nowhere raised any objection on the issues framed by the learned trial Court.
6. The perusal of impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from
any illegality or irregularity to warrant interfere by this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality and
irregularity in the impugned order or bring an y material on record to show that the issues so
framed or to be framed are necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties.
In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.
ZC/28/Bal. Revisi on dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.