Trial Courts must frame specific issues on all material propositions of fact denied by parties in pleadings.

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent/mandatory injunction regarding Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants began illegally disposing of HUF assets, such as coal, machinery, and ammonia cylinders.

Consequently, the Trial Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint in 2023 to include paragraphs 24(a) and 24(b) regarding these subsequent events

Although the Trial Court framed issues on March 10, 2023, it did not include an issue regarding the alleged illegal alienation

The plaintiff moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC to frame an additional issue.

On March 12, 2026, the XI Additional District Judge, Gwalior, rejected the application, asserting that the proposed issue was already covered by existing issues and could be addressed during the evidence stage

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

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by refusing to frame an additional issue regarding the illegal alienation of suit property despite specific pleadings and denials in the amended plaint

2. Whether a material proposition of fact denied by the opposing party necessitates the framing of a distinct issue under Order XIV of the CPC

Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC, which mandates that issues must be framed on all material propositions of law or fact where the parties are at variance

Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, which empowers the court to amend or strike out issues necessary for determining the matters in controversy

State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari (AIR 1976 SC 1177), establishing that procedural law is a handmaid to justice and should not be applied in a hyper-technical manner that defeats the cause of justice

The High Court observed that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded illegal alienation in paragraphs 24, 24(a), 24(b), and 31 of the plaint, which the defendants denied, thereby creating a material proposition of fact requiring adjudication

The Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning—that the issue was already covered—flawed because the Trial Court failed to specify which existing issue encompassed the new allegations

The High Court emphasized that framing proper issues is a prerequisite for a fair trial, as evidence must be led in reference to specific issues

Without a distinct issue on illegal alienation, the Court would be unable to effectively adjudicate the prayer for permanent and mandatory injunction

Consequently, the Trial Court’s suggestion to consider the matter only at the evidence stage was held to be legally unsustainable

The Court held that the refusal to frame the additional issue was an error of law.

The Trial Court was directed to allow the application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, frame an additional issue regarding the illegal alienation or disposal of HUF property during the pendency of the suit, and proceed with the trial in accordance with the law

No order as to costs was made