Jharkhand High Court: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., dismissed the present petition filed by the petitioner and denied the recasting of issues at the stage of conclusion of the trial.
In the present case, the order in Title Eviction Suit is under challenge by the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner had admitted that the property in question has been sub-letted in his favour described as Schedule “B” of the plaint. However, the petitioner had filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC to frame an additional issue to the effect that the Schedule “B” premises is not the tenanted premises, therefore, the said issue pertaining to the premises needed to be adjudicated by framing a separate issue but it was rejected by the Court. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner.
In the Eviction Suit, the trial court has found that the suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant from alleged suit “B” land and trial was concluded and the case was fixed for argument and at that stage, the petition was filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for recasting of the issues. Therefore the trial court declined to pass positive order in favour of the petitioner.
In view of the above, this Court has found that the petitioner had raised the issue of having no relation of landlord and tenant after putting his appearance in the eviction suit in question, therefore, a particular issue to that effect has been framed. The court is of the view that now the petitioner is trying to recast the issue by taking plea that he is not in the premises said to have been tenanted in his favour as under Schedule “B” and to that effect the issues have already been framed, therefore, after conclusion of the trial and when the case has been posted for final arguments, the recasting of issue is nothing but to delay the proceeding, therefore, this Court has held that the trial Court has committed any illegality in not passing a positive order. [Md. Allauddin v. Laxmi Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 1003, decided on 06-08-2019]