S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 29.9.2015 whereby, application under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w 151 CPC has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. Briefly stated, Eviction Title Suit No. 7 of 2010 was filed under Sec. 11(1)(c) r/w Sec. 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. In the eviction suit the petitioner is one of the contesting defendants. After the parties closed their evidence, application dated 1.7.2015 was filed for framing the following additional issues: - - (a) Is the suit hit by the law of res judicata and Estoppel under Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) and Sec. 30 of the B.B. (L.R. & E.) Control Act or Jharkhand B (L.R. & E.) Control Act? (b) Is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties? (c) Whether the plaintiff No. 1 Shambhu Dayal Singh has a right, title or interest over suit property or whether he is only a Rent Collector?
(2.) The said application has been dismissed vide order dated 29.9.2015. In the plaint, the plaintiffs admitted that the plaintiff No. 1 had filed a suit for eviction of Awadh Swaroop Khare, the predecessor -in -interest of the defendants on the ground of his personal necessity. The suit was dismissed against which the plaintiff No. 1 preferred an appeal however, the said appeal was also dismissed. Referring to the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement, Mr. Shresth Gautam the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed in Title Appeal No. 55 of 1997, the plaintiff No. 1 preferred S.A. No. 241 of 2002 which was dismissed as withdrawn however, the said fact was suppressed by the plaintiffs. It is contended that while withdrawing S.A. No. 241 of 2002, permission of the Court for instituting a fresh suit was not obtained by plaintiff No. 1 and the plea of personal necessity taken by the plaintiffs has been specifically denied by the defendants and thus, the additional issue on the question of res judicata and estoppel under Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) CPC would arise in the suit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the defendants have failed to raise the plea of res judicata in the written statement and after the parties led their evidence, an issue on which no evidence was led by the parties, cannot be framed. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on decision in "N.R. Narayan Swamy v/s. B. Francis Jagan" : (2001)6 SCC 473 [: 2001(2) JLJR (SC) 756] contends that a subsequent suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity is not barred by res judicata.
(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. It is well -settled that the issues settled by the Court under Order XIV CPC reflect the crystallization of the conflict/dispute between the parties to the suit. The issues framed by the Court are identification of the points required to be decided by the Courts so as to enable the parties to lead evidence on those points. No doubt, it is the duty of the Court to peruse the pleadings of the parties and to analyze the allegations and the contents of documents produced by the parties and thereafter, proceed to frame the issues, it is also well settled that an additional issue cannot be framed on a point on which the parties have not led evidence unless, in the opinion of the Court, the said issue is required to be decided in the suit. The petitioner has produced copies of depositions, on a perusal of which I find that except, reiterating the facts pleaded in the plaint itself, on the question of res judicata the defendants have not cross -examined the plaintiffs' witnesses. Considering the evidence led by the parties in the eviction suit and the stage at which the application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC was filed by the defendants, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the Trial Court has erroneously rejected the application on merits, is liable to be rejected. In "Bachhaj Nahar v/s. Nilima Mandal and Another" : (2008)17 SCC 491, it has been held that, "the object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during the trial". Since the additional issues (a) & (b) do not arise in the facts of the case, dismissal of application dated 1.7.2015 on merits, in my opinion would not cause prejudice to the defendants. Insofar as, additional issue (c) is concerned, it was not pressed by the defendants. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Needless to say that, the dismissal of the application for framing additional issues shall not cause prejudice to the defendants.;