SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 02.08.2013 in Money Suit No. 3 of 2010 whereby, additional issues have been framed, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner is plaintiff in Money Suit No. 3 of 2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that, after final argument in the suit was concluded, on the application filed by the defendant, three additional issues have been framed by the trial court. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 02.08.2013 is a nonspeaking order. Without recording reason for framing additional issues on the application dated 31.07.2013 filed by the defendant, the trial court has passed order dated 02.08.2013.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, submits that it is the specific stand of the plaintiff that the defamatory article was published at Chaibasa and accordingly, the suit was instituted by him at a court at Chaibasa and therefore, the additional issue as to jurisdiction of the court was not required to be framed. It appears that vide order dated 22.09.2011, issues were framed in Money Suit No. 3 of 2010. The defendants raised a plea of nonjoinder of parties and questioned the jurisdiction of the court in the written statement filed by them. It is stated that in the notes of "written arguments" filed by the defendants they took the plea of nonjoinder of parties and the jurisdiction of the court trying Money Suit No. 3 of 2010. It is not denied by the petitioner that he filed reply to application dated 31.07.2013 and after hearing the parties, the trial court framed additional issues including, the issue of nonjoinder of parties and the territorial jurisdiction of the Court trying the Money Suit No. 3 of 2010. On instruction, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is still pending in the court below. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that after the additional issues were framed on 02.08.2013 he was not permitted to adduce evidence, if any. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers: 1. "That the instant application for the issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs or order/orders or direction/directions for quashing the impugned order dated 02.08.2013 passed by Sri R.N. Rai, SubJudgeI, Chaibasa in Money Suit No. 3 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has illegally and arbitrarily framed irrelevant additional issues at the instance of the defendants/respondents without even recording any reasons, that too after closure of final arguments by both the parties at the hearing stage, even though the case ought to have been posted for judgment by the court below. ;