Facts
The Petitioner (Defendant No. 1) entered into an agreement for sale dated 03.02.2022 with Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) regarding land in village Kurud
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner contended that since the Plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated one-year period, the Petitioner served a legal notice on 07.03.2023 revoking/terminating the agreement
Source reference: p. 2In the trial court (8th District Judge, Durg), the Petitioner moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC to frame an additional issue regarding the service and effect of the termination notice
Source reference: p. 2-3The trial court rejected this application via an order dated 07.04.2026
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to frame an additional issue regarding the service and legal effect of the termination notice dated 07.03.2023.
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 6-7Law Applied
Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which empowers the court to amend issues or frame additional issues at any time before passing a decree if such issues are necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties
Source reference: p. 3Foundational principle of civil procedure that issues must be framed based on the "rival pleadings" of the parties to ensure an effective adjudication of the dispute
Source reference: p. 4Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The High Court observed that the Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) had specifically pleaded in paragraph 8 of the plaint that the notice dated 07.03.2023 could not legally cancel the agreement
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner (Defendant No. 1) asserted in the written statement that the contract stood terminated by the said notice
Source reference: p. 3The Court reasoned that since the executability and subsistence of the agreement are the "root of the case," the question of whether the agreement was validly cancelled constitutes a "triable issue"
Source reference: p. 3The Court found that while the trial court had framed general issues, it failed to frame a specific issue regarding the effect of the March 2023 notice, which is essential for a comprehensive adjudication of the rights of the parties
Source reference: p. 3-4Holding
The High Court concluded that a proper adjudication was not possible without the proposed issue
The High Court partly allowed the petition and directed the trial court to frame the additional issue as proposed in paragraph 1-A of the Petitioner’s application and proceed with the suit by providing both parties an opportunity to lead evidence on that specific point
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
MEYALI KUTTIvsYOGESH PANDEY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in