SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated August 31, 2017 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Howrah in Title Suit No. 35 of 2010, thereby rejecting petitioner's application under Order 14, Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing of additional issues. From the facts disclosed in the revisional application it appears that a date was fixed for framing of issues. Usually, parties in the suit suggest issues and considering those suggested issues, court frames issues on the basis of the pleadings before it. On the day, when the issues were framed, the plaintiff was not present and, as a result thereof, suggested issues could not be placed before the court. The court, on the day so fixed, framed the following six issues: i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and prayer? ii) Does the plaintiff have any cause of action to file the instant suit? iii) Is the suit barred by limitation? iv) Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder is necessary parties. v) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for? vi) To what other relief/reliefs if any is the plaintiff entitled.
(2.) Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff filed an application praying for framing of additional issues to the effect: "Was the suit property attached and process surveyor of Ld. Sub-Judge (2nd Court) Howrah, executed the writ of attachment under Order 21, Rule 54 C.P.C. vide order No. 14 dated 26/6/1962 and order of attachment was called back by order dated 10/02/2009 in connection with Money Execution Case No. 23 of 1961?"
(3.) Mr. Saptangsu Basu, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of averments made in the plaint in paragraph 30, wherein the plaintiff has asserted that order of attachment was passed by the learned 2nd Sub-Judge at Howrah and the Writ was issued under Order 21, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the Writ of Attachment was served, which would be apparent from order no. 14 dated June 26, 1962 and this fact was denied by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 6 in their written statement filed on August 10, 2010 at paragraph 38. The other defendants have also denied the said fact. According to Mr. Basu, additional issues are required to be framed. He submits that the court can, at any stage of the suit before passing a decree, frame issues, which are necessary for the determination of the suit.;