Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Challenging order dated 05.04.2013 in Eviction Suit No. 23 of 1991 whereby, application dated 25.04.2011 under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC has been dismissed, the petitioners/ plaintiffs have approached this Court. The Eviction Suit No. 23 of 1991 was instituted by the husband of the petitioner and his father. In the pending suit issues were framed vide order dated 25.08.1995. About 16 years thereafter, on 25.04.2011, an application under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC was filed for recasting the following issues: i. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of this suit premises or whether C.H. Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the suit premises. ii. Whether the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendants or C.H. Pvt. Company Limited is the landlord of the defendants
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the application dated 25.04.2011 was wrongly labelled under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC, in fact, it was an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. The plaintiffs prayed for recasting issue no.4 which was already framed vide order dated 25.08.1995. It is submitted that since the present Eviction Suit has not been instituted under Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, the issue with respect to the ownership of the suit premises, a fact which has been specifically denied by the defendants in the written statement, should have been framed by the learned trial court. It is further submitted that an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC can be entertained and issues can be re-framed at any stage of the suit. The Eviction Suit is still at the preliminary stage and therefore application dated 25.04.2011 has wrongly been rejected by the learned trial court.
(3.) From the materials on record, it appears that there is no dispute that a suit was instituted in the year, 1995 and issues were framed on 25.08.1995. In the pending suit an issue with respect to relationship of "landlord and tenant" has already been framed by the learned trial court. The only ground taken by the plaintiffs in application dated 25.04.2011 is based on the averments in the plaint and the written statement filed by the defendants. No other material has come on record on the basis of which the plaintiffs sought re-framing of issue no.4, which has already been framed with respect to relationship between landlord and tenant. Insofar as, an Eviction suit is concerned, I am of opinion that the Court cannot go into the question of title and ownership of the suit premises. 16 years after the issues were framed, the application under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC has rightly been dismissed by the trial court.;