The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking an order to frame additional issues in a suit. The bench held that such an order does not require interference as it is not incapable of correction at an appeal stage.
Application disposed of with liberty to raise the point at the stage of appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4815 of 2011 (7) dt.13-09-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4815 of 2011
====================================================== Sachidanand Panday son of late Chhedi Prasad Pandey, resident of MohallaSujaganj, Lohapatti, P.S. Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur. .... Defendant 2nd Set.... Petitioner Versus 1. Sheo Shankar Pandey son late Chhedi Prasad Pandey, resident of mohalla-Sujaganj, Lohapatti, P.S. Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur. 2. Mosmat Kishori Devi D/o Late Chhedi Prasad Pandey, R/o mohallaSujaganj, Lohapatti, P.S. Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur. .... plaintiffs .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anshuman For the Respondent/s : Mr. Braj Nandan Kr. Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 13-09-2013 The petitioner in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the defendant before the Court below. He is aggrieved by an order dated 10.02.2011 passed by learned Court of Sub-Judge-VI, Bhagalpur in T.S No. 131 of 2005 whereby the Court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners for framing two new issues with regard to which, according to the petitioner, the pleadings are already there on record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that framing of the two new issues are essential for securing the ends of justice.
As has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, foundational facts for framing of thosse new issues are already there on record and no further evidence would be required to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.4815 of 2011 (7) dt.13-09-2013
led if, the new issues are framed.
In view of such submissions, I am of the opinion, an order refusing to add new issues would require no interference by this Court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for order cannot be said to be incapable of correction at subsequent stage of appeal.
This application is accordingly disposed of with the observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to raise the point as taken in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at any subsequent stage including at the stage of appeal if the decision in the suit goes against him.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
Saif/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 to direct the Sub-Judge to frame additional issues.
Whether the refusal to frame new issues at the trial stage is incurable by the writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachidanand Panday
Sheo Shankar Panday
Mosmat Kishori Devi
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
