### Trial Court Must Issue Speaking Orders When Adjudicating Applications for Framing Additional Issues

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a civil suit, Regular Civil Suit No. 145/2024, claiming a "first right of purchase" of the suit property under Hindu Law

The petitioner moved an application at Exhibit-35 seeking to frame an additional issue regarding this specific right

The Trial Court (4th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh), by an order dated 10.02.2026, partly allowed the application but failed to incorporate the proposed Issue No. 1 or provide reasons for its exclusion

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in passing a non-speaking order that failed to adjudicate upon the proposed issue regarding the plaintiff's first right of purchase despite specific pleadings

2. Whether an issue must be framed when there are specific averments in the plaint and a subsequent dispute regarding those facts

The court applied principles governing the framing of issues under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the constitutional mandate for judicial officers to pass "speaking orders."

When a pleading (para-5 and para-14 of the plaint) identifies a specific right and seeks corresponding relief, the court is duty-bound to frame the necessary issues

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to correct a procedural impropriety where the subordinate court failed to assign reasons for its decision

The High Court observed that the petitioner had clearly averred a "first right of purchase" in paragraph 5 of the plaint and included a specific prayer for relief in paragraph 14

Under civil procedure, once a dispute arises from such pleadings, a corresponding legal issue must be framed to determine the rights of the parties

The High Court found the Trial Court’s order to be "non-speaking" as it provided no justification for failing to include the proposed Issue No. 1

Consequently, the High Court determined that the order lacked proper adjudication and required a fresh hearing after giving all parties an opportunity to be heard

The matter was remanded back to the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh, with directions to restore the application below Exhibit-35 and re-adjudicate it afresh and in accordance with the law within one month

The court reserved liberty for the respondents to seek modification of this order within 15 days if aggrieved