Parkash vs Rajbir

Mandeep Pannu, J

Thee present revision petition underr Article 227 of the Constitutionn of India has beenn filed by the defendant–petiitioner assailing the order daated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Junior Divisioon), Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framingg of an additional issue has been

dismissed.

Brief Facts

Thee brief facts leading to the pressent petition are that the plaintiff– respondent instiituted a suit for specific performmance of an agreement to sell daated 05.03.2014, alleegedly executed by the defenddant in his favour. The defenddant contested the claim and filed written statement, specifically pleading that he neever executed any aggreement to sell on 05.03.2014 and that in fact the true transacttion between the parties was an earlier agreement to sell dated 07.02.2013. On the baasis

of the pleadingss, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Issue No.1, whhich covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance as averred in the plaint? OPP.”

Thee learned trial Court, while deeciding the matter, considered the evidence adduceed by both parties. In paragraphss 26, 27, 31 and 32 of the judgment, the learned triall Court specifically discussed thhe case of the defendant regardding the alleged prioor agreement dated 07.02.2013, marked as Ex. D1, as well as the entries in the register of the deed writer reliied upon by the defendant. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detaiiled findings on this plea, and ultimately decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

Thee defendant preferred an appeall against the judgment and decree. During the penddency of the appeal, he moved an application under Order 41 Rule

25 CPC praying for framing of an additional issue regarding the execution and effect of the agreement dated 07.02.2013. The appellate Court, after hearing both sides, dismissedd the application, holding that the matter regarding the alleged agreement datedd 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided by the trial Court, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisionss of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing an additionall issue.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

Leaarned counsel for the petitionerr argued before this Court that the defendant’s pleaa about the prior agreement datedd 07.02.2013 was a distinct defence which had a direct bearing on the genuineness of the subsequent agreement daated 05.03.2014. It is submitted that non-framing of a specific issue on the earrlier agreement has prejudiced the defendant, and therefore the lower appellate Coourt erred in declininng the request to frame an additioonal issue.

Findings

I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court cllearly reveals that the plea of the defendant regarrding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not ignored. On the contrary, the trial Court toook note of the document Ex. D1, examined the enntries in the register of the deed writer and gave detailed findings in paragraphs 27 and 32 of its judgment. Thus, thee Court was alive to the defence set up by the defendant and adjudicated upon it while deciding Issue No.1. Once the trial Court has already examined the matter on merits and returned findingss, it cannot be said that the absence of a separately worded issue has caused any prejudice.

Ordder 41 Rule 25 CPC empowers the appellate Court to fraame additional issues and remit them to the trial Coourt for trial if the Court considders that an issue esssential for the just decision off the case has not been tried. The object of the provision is to ensure that no material question of fact remaains undecided. Howwever, the said power is not to be exercised where the trial Coourt has, in fact, connsidered the matter and rendered a finding, though without fram ing a separate formmal issue. The test is whether the Court was conscious of the controversy and decided it. In the present case, as noticed above, the trial Court has given specific findings on the alleged agreemennt dated 07.02.2013. Therefore, the situation does not attract Order 41 Rule 25 CPC.

Conclusion

In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate Coourt refusing to framme an additional issue is fully jusstified and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interfereence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.

Pennding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.