Malik, C.J. - (1.) This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad dated 10-12-1848.
(2.) A suit was tiled in the Court of the learned Civil Judge in 1947 in which the issues that were framed by his predecessor were as follows : 1. Whether Baijnath was the owner of the property in suit ? 2. Whether Baijnath dedicated the property in suit in favour of the plaintiffs ? Whether the waqf was acted upon ? 3.Whether the suit is barred by Articles 142 and 144, Limitation Act ? 4. Whether the court fee paid is insufficient ? 5. Is the suit barred by Section 42, Specine Relief Act ? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are members of Nawyuwak Mandal and is it a registered body, if so, what is us effect on the suit ? 7. Are the plaintiffs competent to maintain the suit ? Or is the suit as framed not maintainable ? 8. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ?
(3.) The parties went to trial on these issues. Evidence was recorded, arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved. When the learned Judge came to consider his judgment he passed the order which is the subject-matter of this revision. It is as follows : "While studying the file for writing judgment I find that some of the pleas which were raised by the defendants have not been properly covered by the issues that were framed in the case by my predecessor-in-office. It, therefore, becomes necessary to frame some fresh issues and while doing so I consider it desirable to re-frame even the existing issues." He thereupon re-framed the old issues and added the following fresh issues : I. Is the defendant 2 a transferee in good faith, and for consideration and is, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,000 or any other sum before the suit is decreed ? II. Is the plaintiff 1 a deity in existence ? Was the deity properly installed and is the suit maintainable in its name ? III. Is the suit barred by estoppel ? IV. Is the suit bad under Section 42, Specific Relief Act ? V. Have the defendants 3 to 6 been unnecessarily joined, as, defendants ? Is the suit bad on that account ? VI. Have plaintiffs 2 to 6 any right to maintain the suit for or on behalf of the plaintiff 1 ? VII. Is defendant 1 a tenant in one of the shops ? VIII. Is the plaintiff entitled to claim arrears of rent from him, and if so, at what rate ? IX. Has the tenancy of the defendant 1 been properly terminated by notice or forfeiture ?;