- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.2.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing a new issue.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bihari Lal Agrawal, has contended that according to the petitioner, in his plaint he had claimed that defendant-respondent No.2, Chander Singh, was occupying a plot which was initially given by RIICO to him. Despite his repeated requests to Chander Singh to inform him about the basis on which he was occupying his plot, Chander Singh maintained a studied silence. On the other hand, in his written statement Chander Singh had denied the averments made by the plaintiff and had claimed that the said plot was allotted to him by RIICO. According to the learned counsel, once there was a denial by defendant-respondent No.2, an issue ought to have been framed by the learned Judge. But the learned Judge has dismissed his application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order, as well as the other documents submitted by the petitioner.;