CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt. Pyari Devi vs Smt. Lalli Devi

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 7 October 2013 · Citation: (2013) 10 MP CK 0218

HON’BLE JUDGES
U.C. Maheshwari, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 377 words

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The petitioners-defendant nos. 1 to 9 have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Class-I to the Court of First Civil Class-I, Rewa in COS No. 149-A/08 whereby their application filed under Order 14, Rule 5 of CPC, (Ann. P-4) for framing additional issues in the matter in the light of the special pleadings of the WS has been dismissed. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties the plaint and special pleadings of the WS (Ann. P-1 & P-2), so also the averments of the aforesaid IA, (Ann. P-4) and its reply, (Ann. P-5) alongwith the impugned order, (Ann. P-6).

2.

It is settled proposition of law that issues should be framed by the court on all the disputed questions, including the pleadings of the WS. If any question is raised by the defendant in his defence in WS. In view of such settled legal position, on examining the case at hand, it is apparent that while framing the issues by the trial court in the matter, some martial issues in light of special pleading of the WS, (Ann. P-2), relating to the Will dated 27.4.1988 as alleged executed by one Chunmuna Devi and about non impleading the alleged party to Puddi, D/o. Durga, whether she is a necessary party in the matter have not been framed.

3.

After perusing the aforesaid pleadings, in the available circumstances, proposed issues as mentioned in Annexure P-4.

4.

In view of aforesaid by allowing this petition, the impugned order is set aside and by allowing the impugned application, Ann. P-4, the trial court is directed to frame the additional issues stated in such application. However, it is made clear that the trial court shall be at liberty to modify the language of the proposed issued as stated in Annexure P-4. The trial court is also directed to frame such issues before recording the evidence of the parties, so they may adduce their evidence in the light of such issues also.

5.

There shall be no order as to cost. The petition is allowed, as indicated above.