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. 4Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
Original Court PDF
MEYALI KUTTIvsYOGESH PANDEY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
