- (1.)Revision is directed against an order refusing to frame an additional issue in an original suit. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit O.S.213/90 before the Munsiff, Devikulam was filed by him against the respondent for realisation of arrears of licence fee in respect of a building which is alleged to have been entrusted to respondent on agreeing to pay a licence fee of Rs.10/- per day. Defendant claimed to be a lessee on a monthly rent of Rs.275/-. One of the issues framed reads:
"Whether plaintiff is entitled to any amount by way of arrears of licence fee as claimed in the suit -

(2.)Before filing of the present suit defendant had filed a suit as O.S. 175/87 before the same court seeking a prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff herein and another from entering the room. In that suit defendant claimed to be in possession of the building as a lessee. Plaintiff resisted that suit and contended inter alia that defendant was only a licensee and not a lessee." The Trial Court decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred against that decision as A.S.34/89. The appeal was decided since the filing of the present suit. The appeal was allowed and in reversal of the decision of the Trial Court O.S. 175/87 was dismissed. It was thereafter that revision petitioner moved the court below for getting an additional issue framed as to whether the claim of the defendant is barred by res judicata on account of the decree in O.S.175/87 and the decree in A.S. 34/89. The request for framing additional issue was rejected by the court below finding that the matter in issue is not directly and substantially in issue in the earlier case and that there is no necessity to frame such an issue in the present suit. Aggrieved by that order plaintiff has come up in revision.
(3.)Heard counsel.
;