Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Court Cannot Frame Issues Beyond Pleadings: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently clarified that scope of the power granted to courts under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend, add, delete, or strike out issues is not absolute and is subject to the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XIV, which limits the framing of issues to materials comprising allegations made in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, documents produced, or statements made on oath.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

"The power enshrined in Order 14, Rule 5, however, is controlled by the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 14 which provides that the court may frame issues from all or any of the materials comprising allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories, documents produced by the parties, allegations made on oath by the parties or by any person present on their behalf, or statements made by the pleaders appearing for the parties, upon examination of witnesses or inspection of the documents".

Justice Wani was hearing a plea where the petitioner had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the court to set aside an order passed by the court of Civil Judge/Munsiff Chadoora on March 9th 2023.

In the instant case the respondents had initially filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner, among others, in relation to a parcel of land. The petitioner filed a counter-claim, which was later registered as a separate suit after the plaintiffs withdrew their original suit unconditionally.

In the counter-claim, the petitioner averred that the land in question had been agreed to be sold to him by the respondents for Rs. 60 lakhs in 2017, and that possession of the land had been delivered to him. The petitioner had also paid Rs. 40 lakhs as advance sale consideration and had sold 7 marlas of the land to the original proforma defendants in the original suit. The plaintiffs-turned-defendants in the counter-claim denied the execution of any sale agreement with the petitioner or the delivery of possession of the land.

The trial court framed several issues, and on March 9th 2023, it partly heard counsel for the parties on preliminary issues and subsequently on March 19th 2023, the trial court passed an order framing a new issue: "Whether the suit (counter claim) is maintainable in its present form?"

The petitioner through the medium of instant petition challenged this order on the grounds that the issue was not necessary or relevant to the case and was not founded on the pleadings of the parties.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Wani observed that no doubt that courts have power under Order 14 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code to amend, add, delete or strike out the issues in order to ensure determination of all the issues between the parties inasmuch as enabling it to do justice between the parties by not leaving controversial points undetermined and undecided, at any time before the passing of the decree.

However, once the issues stand framed by the court by the consent of both the parties, such issues are not to be struck off or deleted without consent of the parties, the bench clarified.

Observing that the the power enshrined in Order 14, Rule 5, however, is controlled by the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 14 of CPC, Justice Wani added that the court also is not permitted to stretch the issues which on reasonable interpretation does not fall within the pleadings on which the issues were founded and if the pleadings do not contain necessary foundation for raising an issue.

Applying the said position of law to the case at hand the bench observed that there was nothing on record necessitating the framing of the issue in terms of the impugned order more so in presence of the Issue 9 framed earlier by the trial court on 24.6.2019.

"The issue framed in terms of the impugned order could not have been framed by the trial court in view of the aforesaid observations pertaining to the provisions of Order 14 Rule 3 supra",the bench maintained.

Pointing out the misdirection resorted to by the trial court in the matter, the court held the impugned order not sustainable and directed the trial court to proceed in the matter in accordance with the law and in light of the observations.

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Mir Vs Nisar Ahmad Wani and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 110

Coram: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Ahmad Javid, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Mr Ateeb Kanth.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment