AJAY BHANOT,J. - (1.) Sri Vageesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 17.09.2013: I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 41,30,000/- along with interest from the defendants? II. Whether the instant suit is barred by Order VII Rule 11 CPC? III. Whether the suit is undervalued and the prescribed court fees is insufficient? IV. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the suit? V. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief, etc. against the defendants based on the mentioned statements? VI. Whether the plaintiff is entitled received any other relief, if any? VII. Whether the parties are misjoinder? The following additional issues were sought to be framed at the instance of the defendant/petitioner: I. Whether it was impossible to comply with the contract letter dated 12.11.2011? II. Whether the consent by the plaintiff from defendant no. 2 was obtained by force? III. Whether the suit is against the provisions of Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act? IV. Whether the plaintiff is only entitled to receive the actual loss amount?
(2.) The impugned order dated 18.12.2019 rejecting the application for framing of additional issues records that the matter was posted for final hearing and the plaintiff had already advanced his arguments. However, the defendants instead of raising arguments in refutation of the case of the petitioner has filed the instant application for framing of additional issues.
(3.) The learned trial court has set forth such findings while rejecting the application for framing of additional issues in these terms. The additional issues which are sought to be framed fell within the ambit of issues already framed on 17.09.2013. It is open to the parties to argue on any other issues at the time of final hearing. The defendant evidently is trying to delay the final decision of the suit proceedings as the previous narrative shows.;