Question: 1. From what materials are issues framed? 2. Is a Court empowered to amend or strike out an issue? 3. What is the effect of omission to frame issues on some facts by the trial Court? Find the answer only on Legal bites.[1. From what materials are issues framed? 2. Is a Court empowered to amend or strike out an… Read More »

Question: 1. From what materials are issues framed? 2. Is a Court empowered to amend or strike out an issue? 3. What is the effect of omission to frame issues on some facts by the trial Court? Find the answer only on Legal bites.[1. From what materials are issues framed? 2. Is a Court empowered to amend or strike out an issue? 3. What is the effect of omission to frame issues on some facts by the trial Court?] Answer The scheme of order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing...

Question: 1. From what materials are issues framed? 2. Is a Court empowered to amend or strike out an issue? 3. What is the effect of omission to frame issues on some facts by the trial Court?

Find the answer only on Legal bites.[1. From what materials are issues framed? 2. Is a Court empowered to amend or strike out an issue? 3. What is the effect of omission to frame issues on some facts by the trial Court?]

Answer

The scheme of order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other should form the subject of a distinct issue.

Issues are framed for arriving at the right decision of the case and to pin-point the real and substantial points of difference. The object of an issue is to bring down the evidence, arguments, and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt as to what the dispute is.

R.3 of Order XIV deals with Materials from which issues may be framed. It states that the Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:

  • allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties;
  • allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit;
  • the contents of documents produced by either party.

In Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia [AIR 2001 SC 490] the Supreme Court has held thus:

“An obligation is cast on the Court to read the plaint/petition and the Written Statement/counter if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material proposition of fact or law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the Court in the process of framing of issues.

The duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the Court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The Judgment, then proceeding issues-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided”.

Striking Out power of Court

Order XIV Rule 5 of C.P.C. talks about the Power to amend, and strikeout issues. Subrule (2) of Rule 5 lays down the striking out the power of the court of any wrongly framed issues. It says,

“The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced. The Court can amend or frame additional issues before passing any decree at any point in time. But on the basis of pleadings in the plaint, issues were framed by the trial Court. The defense raised by the revision petitioners is also raised in the written statement itself.”

In the case of State Bank of India v. Sanjeev Mallik, AIR 1996 Del 284 where a plaint is filed in a court having no jurisdiction to try different causes of action, and the court decides that it can deal with only one of the causes of action set out in the plaint, then it should retain the plaint and strike out from the plaint that part which it holds as beyond its jurisdiction and then the plaintiff can file another suit in the proper court as to that cause of action so struck off.

Omission to frame issues

Where a material fact stated in the plaint is denied or is not admitted in the written statement, the court must frame an issue on the fact. If, though no issue is framed on the fact, the parties adduce evidence on the fact and discuss it before the court decides the point, as if there was an issue framed on it, the decision will not be set aside in appeal on the ground merely that no issue was framed.

The mere omission, on the part of a trial court, to frame an issue in a matter in controversy between the parties, cannot be regarded as fatal, unless upon examination of the record, it is found that the failure to frame the issue had resulted in the parties: [Khem Chand v. Hari Saran, AIR 1988 HP 10]

  • having gone to the trial without knowing that the said question was an issue between them, and
  • having, therefore, failed to adduce evidence on the point.

The SC discussed the true scope of this rule in Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rai, AIR 1963 SC 884 that evidence let in on the issue on which the parties actually went to trial should not be made the foundation for the decision of another and different issue, which was not present to the minds of the parties and on which they had no opportunity of adducing evidence. But, that rule has no application to a case where the parties go to a trial with the knowledge that a particular question is in issue, though no specific issue has been framed thereon and adduce evidence relating thereto.

Where in Chand Bee v. Hameedunnissa, AIR 2007 AP 150 the absence of any specific plea and issue, the parties have adduced evidence, duly understanding a particular fact of controversy, and the Court is satisfied that the understanding of the parties was clear and absolute and they have produced all the facts before the Court, it can consider the feasibility of dealing with the particular controversy. However, such a course would be permissible only if that controversy has a bearing on the subject matter of the suit.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

Updated On 2022-03-24T07:36:40+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story