- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist-plaintiff.
(2.) BY means of present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisionist-plaintiff challenges the order dated 7th October, 2005, passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has refused to frame the additional issues as prayed for by learned counsel for the plaintiff and rejected the application 73 C2 filed by the revisionist. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-revisionist filed suit before the trial Court. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties have framed the following issues in presence of the learned counsel for the parties,:- "1.Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in suit by way of adverse possession as alleged in para 8 of the plaint ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property in suit as alleged in the plaint? 3. Whether the constructions and fixtures existing on the property in suit belonged to defendant no. 4 and the plaintiff was mere licensee thereof, if so, its effect ? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ?"
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist-plaintiff produced certified copy of the order sheet dated 5th July, 2005. A perusal of the order dated 5th July, 2005 clearly demonstrate that all the issues were framed in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and on other issues were pressed by any party, including the revisionist-plaintiff. It appears that subsequent to the framing of the issues, the plaintiff filed an application purporting to an application under Order XIV, Rule 5, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which it has been prayed with the following observation :- "At the time of framing of issues on 5.7.2005 the counsel for the plaintiff requested the learned court to frame correct and relevant issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, but the learned court omitted to frame the relevant issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The Court appears to be biased against the plaintiff. For the judicious and fair trial of the suit, it is necessary that the following issues arising from the pleadings be framed:- 1) Whether Caltex India took the property in question on Lease from Chattar Sain Jain and made constructions thereon ? 2) Whether Defendant No. 4 became the tenant in actual possession of the property in question after the acquisition of Caltex India by Defendant No.4 ? 3) Whether Defendant No.4 is the tenant in actual possession of the property in Suit, Which he took for the period 1.8.1993 to 31.7.2018 ?" ;