- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhav Jain for the respondent. Undisputed facts giving rise to dispute are as under: Landlord-respondent filed SCC suit seeking a decree of eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. After the evidence of the parties was over, an application was filed by the tenant-petitioner with the prayer to frame issues before proceeding any further, vide order dated 8.5.2012, Judge, Small Cause rejected the application against which a revision was preferred which was also dismissed. Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the points for determination shall be framed and mentioned in the judgment and there was no requirement to frame issues in a suit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Akhil Kumar Jain v. Smt. Sharda Devi and others, 2011 88 AllLR 682, it was incumbent upon the Judge, Small Cause Court to frame issue before proceeding with the case and the application has wrongly been dismissed.
(2.) In reply, Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the provision of Order 50 Rule 1(a)(iii) of the Code of Civil Procedure (In short the 'Code'), it is not mandatory or incumbent upon the Judge, Small Cause Courts to frame any issue before proceeding for adjudication of the dispute as is required in other civil suits. It has also been submitted that the judgment in the case of Akhil Kumar Jain , being relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, since has not noticed the provision of Order 50 Rule 1(a)(iii), hence, cannot be said to be a good law.
(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;