Failure to frame issues does not vitiate a trial absent prejudice to the parties.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in C.O.S.No.34 of 2022, sought recovery of money and related reliefs.

The suit was reserved for judgment before the trial court noticed that issues had not been framed.

The court reopened the suit and framed issues on 09.04.2026.

The defendants then applied under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW1 and PW2 for further cross-examination; that application was allowed on 05.08.2026, prompting this revision under Article 227.

Evidence had already been recorded and documents marked before the issues were framed.

Whether omission to frame issues before recording evidence, by itself, vitiated the trial.

Whether the trial court’s order permitting recall of PW1 and PW2 for further cross-examination should stand, or whether the parties’ further evidence should instead be confined to any gaps identified against the issues framed.

Order XIV CPC requires the court to identify material propositions of fact and law in dispute and frame issues to define the questions for trial.

As explained in Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, (2001) 2 SCC 652, issues focus the evidence and decision on the real controversy, and omission to frame proper issues may justify retrial where prejudice is shown.

Under the prejudice test stated in Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 598, omission to frame issues can vitiate the trial if parties lacked knowledge that a question was in issue or lacked an opportunity to lead evidence on it.

Section 99 CPC provides that an error or irregularity in proceedings does not, by itself, warrant reversal where it does not affect the merits or the court’s jurisdiction.

The Court invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to regulate the proceedings and safeguard both parties’ interests.

Although the trial court failed to frame issues before recording evidence, the High Court found that both parties understood the disputes and had led evidence on them; the omission therefore did not, on its own, vitiate the trial.

At the same time, the Court considered it necessary to ensure that the evidence addressed the issues subsequently framed.

Rather than undoing the trial or permitting unrestricted recall, it directed the trial court to review the evidence and identify any matters requiring further evidence or cross-examination, giving both parties an opportunity limited to those matters.

The trial court was directed to assess whether the evidence corresponded to the issues framed on 09.04.2026 and, if further evidence or cross-examination was needed, to identify the relevant areas and afford both parties an opportunity on those matters.

The suit was to be disposed of within three months of receipt of the order; no costs were awarded.