# Dinesh Kumar Revisionist v. Smt. Asha Agarwal & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 951
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-30
- **Case number:** S.C.C. Revision No. 60 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-revisionist-v-smt-asha-agarwal-anr-48681
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887- Sections 17 & 23 -Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IV Rule 4
& Order L - The Small Causes Court is a
summary proceedings and detailed reasons
are not required to be given in judgments.
The point for determination does not need for
framing an issue and there is no need for the
procedure applicable for the regular civil suits.
In case the detail procedure of regular suit is
also followed in the matter of the Small
Causes Court, the very object of the Act No. 9
of 1887 shall be frustrated.

B. Proceeding of SCC suit shall be governed
by the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4 of Code,
1908 and not by the provisions of Order XIV,
Rule 5 of Code, 1908.

C. Order XIV of Code, 1908 says for
settlement of issue in Civil Suit whereas Order
XX, Rule 5 of Code, 1908 says for framing of
point of determination in SCC Suit and Order
L Rule 1 of Code, 1908 clearly bars the
certain provisions of Code, 1908 including
settlement of issues also. Therefore, intention
of legislation is very much clear while having
two different provisions for Civil Suit and SCC
Suit and it cannot be said that Order, XIV
Rules 1 & 3 & Order XX Rule 4 of Code, 1908
are having the same meaning. Mandate of
Order L Rule 1 of Code, 1908 cannot also be
ignored which is inserted by the legislation to
remove any confusion while dealing with the
provisions of Order XIV Rules 1 & 3 and Order
XX Rule 4 of Code, 1908.

D. If by such a refusal to frame issues a
serious prejudice is being caused to the
plaintiff or the defendants then it is always
expedient for the trial court to exercise its
jurisdiction in framing such issues to facilitate
the parties to adduce evidence in the light of
pleadings on the basis of which issues were
framed.

E. It is the discretionary power of the trial
court to frame additional issues if it finds it
necessary for determining the list between
the parties but merely refusal to frame
additional issues does not give a right to the
parties to prefer a revision as by such refusal
Jo frame such additional issues neither the
rights nor the obligations of the parties are
adjudicated upon. Therefore, it is upon the
Court to have a new point of determination
before pronouncing the judgment, if so
required.

Revision dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases relied upon:-

## Text

7 All. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Asha Agarwal & Anr.
951
in the impugned order. Revisions lacks
merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

34. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)07ILR A951
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 60 of 2022

Dinesh Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Asha Agarwal & Anr.
 ...Opposite Parties:

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

A. Civil Law - Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887- Sections 17 & 23 -Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IV Rule 4
& Order L - The Small Causes Court is a
summary proceedings and detailed reasons
are not required to be given in judgments.
The point for determination does not need for
framing an issue and there is no need for the
procedure applicable for the regular civil suits.
In case the detail procedure of regular suit is
also followed in the matter of the Small
Causes Court, the very object of the Act No. 9
of 1887 shall be frustrated.

B. Proceeding of SCC suit shall be governed
by the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4 of Code,
1908 and not by the provisions of Order XIV,
Rule 5 of Code, 1908.

C. Order XIV of Code, 1908 says for
settlement of issue in Civil Suit whereas Order
XX, Rule 5 of Code, 1908 says for framing of
point of determination in SCC Suit and Order
L Rule 1 of Code, 1908 clearly bars the
certain provisions of Code, 1908 including
settlement of issues also. Therefore, intention
of legislation is very much clear while having
two different provisions for Civil Suit and SCC
Suit and it cannot be said that Order, XIV
Rules 1 & 3 & Order XX Rule 4 of Code, 1908
are having the same meaning. Mandate of
Order L Rule 1 of Code, 1908 cannot also be
ignored which is inserted by the legislation to
remove any confusion while dealing with the
provisions of Order XIV Rules 1 & 3 and Order
XX Rule 4 of Code, 1908.

D. If by such a refusal to frame issues a
serious prejudice is being caused to the
plaintiff or the defendants then it is always
expedient for the trial court to exercise its
jurisdiction in framing such issues to facilitate
the parties to adduce evidence in the light of
pleadings on the basis of which issues were
framed.

E. It is the discretionary power of the trial
court to frame additional issues if it finds it
necessary for determining the list between
the parties but merely refusal to frame
additional issues does not give a right to the
parties to prefer a revision as by such refusal
Jo frame such additional issues neither the
rights nor the obligations of the parties are
adjudicated upon. Therefore, it is upon the
Court to have a new point of determination
before pronouncing the judgment, if so
required.

Revision dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases relied upon:-

1. Rameshwar Dayal Vs Banda (dead) through
his L.Rs. & anr.; ARC 1993 (1) 249

2. Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Subhash Chand
Surana; 2013 0 Supreme(All) 727

3. Sardar Sujeet Singh & ors. Vs Suresh
Chandra Porwal; 2014 0 Supreme (All) 529

4. Vikas Gupta Vs M/s. Shri Ram Mahadev
Prasad & anr.; 2014 0 Supreme(All) 1675.

5. Kisan Udyog Vs United Bank of India; 1989 0
Supreme(All) 233
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned
counsel for revisionist.

2. Present revision has been filed for
setting aside the judgment/order dated
07.04.2022 passed by Additional District
Judge Court No. 1, Mathura in SCC Case
No. 01/2017 (Smt. Asha Agarwal and
another vs. Dinesh Kumar), and/or to allow
the application 74Ga of the revisionist.

3. Learned counsel for revisionist
submitted that earlier SCC Suit No. 01 of
2017 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite
party
No.1,
upon
which
revisionistdefendant has preferred written submission
and
replica
has
also
been
filed.
Accordingly,
considering
the
written
submission,
issues
were
framed
on
06.03.2018. It is next submitted that to
decide the SCC Suit, it is necessarily
required to frame additional issues with
regard to title as well as landlordship.
Therefore, revisionist-defendant has moved
application under Section 23 of The
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
(hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1887')
numbered as 74-Ga, which provides return
of plaints in suits involving questions of
title. The said application has been rejected
by the Court below on the ground that after
completion of evidence and during the
course of arguments, just to linger on the
proceeding, the application was moved. It
is also observed in the impugned order that
while deciding the case, if required,
additional issues would be framed. It is
further submitted that under Order XIV
Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as ''Code, 1908'), it
is required that before passing a decree,
Court may amend the issues or frame
additional issues on such terms as it thinks
fit, but in the impugned order, it is observed
that while delivering the judgment, if
required, Court may frame additional
issues, which is contrary to the provisions
of Code, 1908. In support of his contention,
he has placed reliance upon the judgment
of Apex Court in the matter of Rameshwar
Dayal vs. Banda (dead) through his L.Rs.
And another; ARC 1993 (1) 249. He has
also relied upon the judgments of this Court
in the matters of Vikas Pawar vs. Smt. Tara
Rani and another; 2005 (1) ARC 196 and
Satish
Chandra Agarwal
vs. Ashok
Jaiswal ; 2016 (2) ARC 605.

4. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for revisionist
and perused the impugned order, provisions
of law as well as judgments relied upon.

5. Revisionist-defendant has filed
application under Order XIV Rule 5 of
Code, 1908 for framing of additional
issues, which was rejected. Issue before the
Court is to decide as to whether the
proceeding of SCC Court shall be governed
under the provisions of Order XX of Code,
1908 or Order XIV of Code, 1908 and
application under Order XIV, Rule 5 of
Code, 1908 is maintainable or not.

6. Present proceeding of suit is
governed by the provisions of Act, 1887 as
well as Code, 1908 and Section 17 of Act,
1887 provides applicability of Code, 1908.
Relevant provisions of Act, 1887 and Code,
1908 are quoted below:-

Act, 1887

"17. Application of the Code of
Civil Procedure.--(1) 1[The procedure
prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908), shall, save in so far as is
otherwise provided by that Code or by this
7 All. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Asha Agarwal & Anr.
953
Act,] be the procedure followed in a Court
of Small Causes in all suits cognizable by it
and in all proceedings arising out of such
suits:

Provided that an applicant for an
order to set aside a decree passed ex parte
or for a review of judgment shall, at the
time of presenting his application, either
deposit in the court the amount due from
him under the decree or in pursuance of the
judgment, or give [such security for the
performance of the decree or compliance
with the judgment as the Court may, on a
previous application made by him in this
behalf, have directed.]

(2) Where a person has become
liable as surety under the proviso to subsection (1), the security may be realised in
manner provided by section 3[145] of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 4[1908 (5 of
1908)]."

Code, 1908

"Order XIV Rule 1. Framing of
issues.-(1) Issues arise when a material
proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the
one party and denied by the other.

(2) Material propositions are those
propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff
must allege in order to show a right to sue or
a defendant must allege in order to constitute
his defence.

(3)
Each
material
proposition
affirmed by one-party and denied by the other
shall form the subject of distinct issue.

(4)Issues are of two kinds:

(a)issues of fact,

(b) issues of law.

(5) At the first hearing of the suit
the Court shall, after reading the plaint and
the written statements, if any, and after
examination under rule 2 of Order X and
after hearing the parties or their pleaders,
ascertain upon what material propositions
of fact or of law the parties are at variance,
and shall thereupon proceed to frame and
record the issues on which the right
decision of the case appears to depend.

(6) Nothing in this rule requires
the Court to frame and record issues where
the defendant at the first hearing of the suit
makes no defence.

Order XIV Rule 5. Power to
amend, and strike out, issues.-(1) The
Court may at any time before passing a
decree amend the issues or frame additional
issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all
such amendments or additional issues as
may be necessary for determining the
matters in controversy between the parties
shall be so made or framed.

(2) The Court may also, at any
time before passing a decree, strike out any
issues that appear to it to be wrongly
framed or introduced.

Order XX Rule 4. Judgments of
Small Cause Courts.- (1) Judgments of a
Court of Small Causes need not contain
more than the points for determination and
the decision thereon.

(2) Judgments of other Courts.-
Judgments of other Courts shall contain
concise statement of the case, the points of
determination, the decision thereon, and the
reasons for such decision.

Order L Rule 1. Provincial
Small Cause Courts.- The provisions
hereinafter specified shall not extend to
Courts constituted under the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887)
[or under the Berar Small Cause Courts
Law, 1905] or to Courts exercising the
jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes
[under the said Act or Law], [or to Court in
[any part of India to which the said Act
does
not
extend]
exercising
a
corresponding jurisdiction] that is to say-

(a) so much of this schedule as
relates to-

(I) suits
excepted from the
cognizance of a Court of Small Causes or
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the execution of decrees in such suits;(ii)
the execution of decrees against immovable
property or the interest of a partner in
partnership property;

(iii) the settlement of issues; and

(b)......................................."

7. From the perusal of aforesaid legal
provisions, it is clear that as per Section 17
of Act, 1887, Code, 1908 would be
applicable in the matter of SCC suits also.
Further, Order L Rule 1 of Code, 1908
restrains
the
applicability
of
certain
provisions of Code, 1908, which also
includes the settlement of issues. Order
XIV Rule 1 of Code, 1908 provides for
settlement of issues which includes issue of
law and issue of facts both. Order XX Rule
4 of Code, 1908 provides for judgment of
Small
Cause
Courts
and
says
that
judgments of Court of Small Cause need
not contain more than the point of
determination
and
decision
thereon.
Therefore, whole picture so emerges is that
Code, 1908 would be applicable in SCC
suit, but as per Order L Rule 1 of Code,
1908, judgment shall be pronounced as per
Order XX Rule 4 of Code, 1908 and not as
per Order XIV of Code, 1908.

8. So far as present case is concerned,
undoubtedly, earlier SCC Court has framed
"fopkj.k
fcanw"
on
06.03.2018
which
according to revisionist is the "issue". This
Court has also observed that neither other
issues are made out nor pressed by either of
the parties for framing of additional issues.
Further, Court has fixed the date of
28.03.2018 for evidence. "fopkj.k fcanw" is
Hindi terminology, which may be translated
as issue as well as point of determination
both
having
almost
no
difference.
Therefore, before coming to the conclusion
as to whether its an "issue" or "point of
determination", this Court has gone through
the legal provisions and according to that in
SCC suit, there is no provision of framing
of issues, therefore, it must have been
translated as point of determination under
Order XX Rule 4 of Code, 1908.

9. Now another issue is as to whether
application of revisionist under Order XIV
Rule 1 of Code, 1908 is maintainable or
not. Before deciding this question, it is
necessarily required to discuss the cases
relied upon by learned counsel for
revisionist.

10. Learned counsel for revisionist
has placed reliance upon the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the matter of
Rameshwar Dayal (Supra), where Court
has held that point of determination
referred to in Order XX Rule 4(1) of Code,
1908 are absolutely nothing but an issue as
contemplated by Rules 1 & 3 of Order XIV
of Code, 1908. In the said case, the issue
before the Apex Court was that SCC suit
was decided without framing any point of
determination or issues as required either
under Order XX Rule 4 or Order XIV Rule
1 & 3 of Code, 1908. The Apex Court has
dealt with this issue in detail and basically
Apex Court was of the opinion that before
deciding the suit, point of determination or
issue is necessarily required to be framed.

11. In next paragraph of the said
judgement, Apex Court has held that it was
obligatory for the Small Cause Courts, in
the present case, to state the points for
determination and give its finding or
decision on each of the said points meaning
thereby though in previous paragraph,
Apex Court has held that issue and point of
determination are same, but in next
paragraph, Apex Court has clarified that so
far as SCC suit is concerned, it is required
to frame point of determination. Relevant
7 All. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Asha Agarwal & Anr.
955
paragraph Nos. 22 & 23 of judgment of
Rameshwar Dayal (Supra) is quoted
below:-

"Points
for
determination"
referred to in Rule 4(1) are obviously
nothing but "issues" contemplated by Rules
1 and 3 of Order XIV of the Code. The
present decision of the Small Causes Court
which has not even stated the points for
determination and given finding thereon, is
obviously not a judgment within the
meaning of Section 2(9) of the Code. Since
the matters were controversy between the
parties, it is only a judgment which could
have given rise to a decree. The so-called
decision of the Small Causes Court,
therefore, does not amount to a decree
within the meaning of Section 2(2) read
with Section 2(9) and Rules 4(1) and 5 of
Order XX of the Code.

It is not disputed that in view of
the provisions of Section 17(1) of the
Provincial Small Causes Court Act, the
Code is applicable to Small Causes Court
except where it is otherwise provided either
by the Code or the said Act. Apart from
Rules 4(1) and 5 of Order XX of the Code,
on this count also, it was obligatory for the
Small Causes Court, in the present case, to
state the points for determination and give
its finding or decision on each of the said
points. Hence the present decision of the
Small Causes Court is not a judgment and a
decree in the eye of law and is, therefore,
no nest as far as the respondent is
concerned."

12. This issue again came up before
the Division Bench of this Court in the
matter of Krishna Kumar Gupta vs.
Subhash
Chand
Surana;
2013
0
Supreme(All) 727 and Court has dealt this
matter in detail and also interpreted the
judgment of Rameshwar Dayal (Supra).
Relevant paragraph Nos. 13 & 14 of
judgment is quoted below:-

"The matter can be viewed from
another angle. Legislature in Order XIV of
the Code has used the words framing of
issues', whereas in Order XX Rule 4
pertaining to Small Causes the words used
are 'points for determination and decision
thereon'. The provision of Order XIV
relating to 'Settlement of issues' having
been
expressly
excluded
from
its
application in suits and proceedings before
the Judge, Small Causes under the
provisions of Small Cause Courts Act by
virtue of Order 50 Rule 1(b) by no stretch
of imagination, it can be said that it is
mandatory upon the Judge, Small Cause
Court while trying a suit under the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to frame
issues as per the procedure prescribed by
Order XIV and non-compliance of the said
provision would vitiate the proceeding. In
view of use of two different expression by
the
legislature
namely,
'framing
and
settlement of issues' and 'points for
determination' it cannot be held that the
procedure prescribed for framing of issues
are to be adhered to or followed by a Judge,
Small Causes Court. It is well-settled that
when in relation to the same subject-matter
different words are used in the same
Statute, there is a presumption that they are
not used in the same sense unless it leads to
unreasonable or irrational results. No doubt
the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed in the
case of Rameshwar Dayal (Supra) that
points for determination referred to in Rule
4(1) are nothing but 'issues' contemplated
by Rule 1 and 3 of Order XIV of the Code
but neither it has been observed specifically
nor it can be inferred that procedure and
stage prescribed by Order 14 of the Code
for framing/settlement of issues is to be
followed by the Judge, Small Causes as
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
well while trying a suit under the Provincial
Small Causes Court Act. Thus the view
taken by learned single Judge in the case of
Akhil Kumar Jain (Supra) that it is
mandatory to frame issues in suit being
tried under the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act is against the ratio of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Rameshwar Dayal (Supra)."

13. The very same issue was again
subject matter before this Court in the
matter of Sardar Sujeet Singh and others
vs. Suresh Chandra Porwal; 2014 0
Supreme (All) 529 and Court has again
taken the same view that in light of Section
17 of Act, 1887 and Order L Rule 1 of
Code, 1908 and held that so many
provisions of Code, 1908 are not applicable
to the proceeding of SCC suit and
accordingly, Order 14 Code, 1908 has not
been extended to the Courts constituted
under the Act. Relevant paragraph Nos. 25
& 26 of judgment is quoted below:-

" The procedural law is enacted to
regulate the proceeding in Court and the
case proceeding should be conducted
strictly in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. The Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act has been enacted with the object
to decide the cases triable by the S.C.C.
expeditiously. It is for this reason that as
per section 17 of the Act and Order L,
C.P.C. so many provisions of C.P.C. are not
made applicable to the proceeding of
S.C.C. suit and further the decree passed by
the S.C.C. has been given finality and the
decision is not appealable.

Since the provisions of settlement
of issues contained in Order XIV has not
been extended to the Courts constituted
under 'the Act', the Application No. 58-C
moved by the defendants for framing the
additional issues purported to be under
Rule 5 Order XIV, C.P.C. is not legally
maintainable. The impugned order is
completely justified in view of provisions
of section 17 of 'the Act' and Order L,
C.P.C."

14. Once again this issue came up
before the this Court in the matter of Vikas
Gupta vs. M/s. Shri Ram Mahadev
Prasad
and
another;
2014
0
Supreme(All) 1675. Relevant paragraph
Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13 of the said judgment is
quoted below:-

"8 . From a perusal of the said
Section it is manifest that the Small Cause
Court has limited pecuniary jurisdiction.
The intent of the legislature is manifest that
the suits of small causes should be decided
expeditiously. With the said view of the
matter the detail procedure of the regular
suit is not applicable.

11. A simple reading of aforesaid
Rules 4 and 5 make it clear that the
judgment of a Court of Small Causes need
not contain more than the points for
determination and the decision thereon,
whereas judgments of other Courts shall
contain a concise statement of the case, the
points for determination, the decision
thereon, and the reasons for such decision.

12. The distinction between sub
rule (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of Order XX of
the CPC by itself is sufficient to indicate
that the Small Causes Court is a summary
proceedings and detailed reasons are not
required to be given in judgments. The
point for determination does not need for
framing an issue and there is no need for
the procedure applicable for the regular
civil suits. In case the detail procedure of
regular suit is also followed in the matter of
the Small Causes Court, the very object of
the Act No. 9 of 1887 shall be frustrated.
Therefore, the submission of the learned
7 All. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Asha Agarwal & Anr.
957
Counsel for the revisionist does not stand to
reasons.

13. After careful consideration of
the matter, I am of the view that framing of
the issue in the suits under the Act No. 9 of
1887 is not mandatory. It is a discretion of
the court to formulate some points for
determination, if it needs it is necessary to
meet the ends of justice, but framing of the
issue like a regular suit, as stated above,
would be against the object of the Act to
dispose of small matters expeditiously."

15. Learned counsel for revisionist
also relied upon the judgments of Vikas
Pawar (Supra) and Satish Chandra
Agarwal (Supra). While deciding the issue,
this Court in Vikas Pawar (Supra) has not
considered Paragraph No. 23 of the
judgment of Rameshwar Dayal (Supra),
which clarifies that in the matter of SCC
suit, point of determination is required to
be framed. Similarly, while deciding the
matter
of
Satish
Chandra
Agarwal
(Supra), this Court has not considered the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in the matters of Kisan Udyog (Supra) and
Sardar Surjeet Singh (Supra), where this
issue has been clarified with observations
that proceeding of SCC suit shall be
governed by the provisions of Order XX,
Rule 4 of Code, 1908 and not by the
provisions of Order XIV, Rule 5 of Code,
1908 which is the intention of the judgment
given in Rameshwar Dayal (Supra) also.

16. As earlier mentioned, while
deciding the SCC suit, provisions of Act,
1887 and Code, 1908 would be applicable.
Certainly, Section 17 of Act, 1887 provides
for applicability of provisions of Code,
1908 whereas Code, 1908 is having
different provisions for Civil Suit and SCC
Suit. One Code, 1908 is having two
different provisions for deciding Civil Suit,
therefore, it cannot be said that both the
provisions would have same meaning.
Order XIV of Code, 1908 says for
settlement of issue in Civil Suit whereas
Order XX, Rule 5 of Code, 1908 says for
framing of point of determination in SCC
Suit and Order L Rule 1 of Code, 1908
clearly bars the certain provisions of Code,
1908 including settlement of issues also.
Therefore, intention of legislation is very
much clear while having two different
provisions for Civil Suit and SCC Suit and
it cannot be said that Order, XIV Rules 1 &
3 & Order XX Rule 4 of Code, 1908 are
having the same meaning. Mandate of
Order L Rule 1 of Code, 1908 cannot also
be ignored which is inserted by the
legislation to remove any confusion while
dealing with the provisions of Order XIV
Rules 1 & 3 and Order XX Rule 4 of Code,
1908. Further, in the case of Rameshwar
Dayal (Supra), Apex Court has considered
this fact and clarified that in the matter of
SCC Suit, point of determination has to be
decided.

17. Now coming again to the issue
involved in the present case, there is no
doubt on this point that Court below has
framed point of determination vide order
dated 06.03.2018, upon which both the
parties were having no objection for more
than four years and only after closure of
evidence, there is no occasion for filing
application for framing additional issues or
point of determination. Inordinate delay in
filing application intends towards the
delaying tactics adopted by the revisionistdefendant coupled with this fact that while
framing the point of determination vide
order dated 06.03.2018, revisionist was not
aggrieved. Secondly, though Order XIV of
Code, 1908 is not applicable, but even if it
provides that it is upon Court to amend the
issue or frame additional issue at any time
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before passing of decree and this view has
also been upheld by the this Court in the
matter of Kisan Udyog vs. United Bank of
India; 1989 0 Supreme(All) 233. Relevant
paragraph No. 4 of the said judgment is
quoted below:-

"4 . In the instant case the plaintiff
has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 52479/-
together with interest at the rate of 13% per
annum. This amount has been claimed in
view of the alleged advance having been
made. It is alleged on behalf of the plaintiff
that the defendants executed an agreement. In
any case it is for the plaintiff to satisfy the
court that the amount is due and is
recoverable from the defendants. No doubt,
the defendants may resist the claim in the
Court. However, if by such a refusal to frame
issues a serious prejudice is being caused to
the plaintiff or the defendants then it is
always expedient for the trial court to
exercise its jurisdiction in framing such issues
to facilitate the parties to adduce evidence in
the light of pleadings on the basis of which
issues were framed. In the instant case I do
not find that any prejudice would be caused
to the defendant applicant. It is the
discretionary power of the trial court to frame
additional issues if it finds it necessary for
determining the list between the parties but
merely refusal to frame additional issues does
not give a right to the parties to prefer a
revision as by such refusal Jo frame such
additional issues neither the rights nor the
obligations of the parties are adjudicated
upon. As no right or obligation of a party is
determined by refusal to frame additional
issues it cannot be held to be deciding a case
so as to attract the expression "case which has
been decided."

18. Therefore, it is upon the Court to
have a new point of determination before
pronouncing the judgment, if so required and
there is no illegality in the observations made
by the Court below in the impugned order.

19. From the perusal of impugned
order, it is very much clear that SCC Court
has rightly held that in the light of Order L
Rule 1 of Code, 1908, there is no provision
for framing issues and provisions of Order
XIV Code, 1908 shall not be applicable. It is
also held that in impugned order, revisionistdefendant has not claimed himself to be the
owner of property and co-owner/landlord
may also have the right to file suit for
eviction, therefore, there is no issue of title
between tenant and landlord before SCC
Court. On facts too, there is no illegality in
the order impugned. It has been rightly held
in the impugned order that point of
determination was framed on 06.03.2018
agreed between the parties and after closer of
evidence, filing of such application is nothing
but an attempt to linger on the proceeding.

20. Therefore, in the light of discussions
made here-in-above about the law and facts, I
found no good reason to interfere in the
impugned order. Revision lacks merit and is
accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)07ILR A958
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 2 of 2005

M/S Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Revisionist
Versus
Commissioner of Trade Tax Lucknow
 ...Opposite Party