Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Framing of issues is probably the most important part of the trial. If a judge correct and accurate issues, it is it
possible to come to the correct decision in the shortest possible time. Inaccurate issues may kill the valuable time.
In the case of Siddhi Chunilal Vs. Suresh Gopkishan (2009(6) BCR 857), it was observed that if correct and accurate
issues were not framed, it leads to gross injustice, delay and waste of the Court’s time in deciding the matter. The
duty in regard to framing of the issue is of the Court which it has to discharge because it has to try the suit and it
has to give notice to parties to lead evidence with reference to the issues framed. Rule 5 of Order 14, C.P.C.
empowers the Court to amend issues or frame additional issues at any stage of proceedings and it does not
contemplate that the power must be exercised when application is made on the other hand it saddles on the Court a
duty to exercise power suo motu “for determining the matters in controversy between the parties” if that was
necessary to do so. When the question of exercise of jurisdiction is in issue that is to be considered in appeal as to
whether there was abdication of jurisdiction or it was exercised illegally or with material irregularity
1. Issues are the crux of a civil case;
2. In C V Joshi Vs Elphinstone Spinning Mills, 2001(supp 2) BomCR 57, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court laid
down that even in execution proceedings issues come into play by way of prudence, though it is not technically
necessary to frame them.
KINDS OF ISSUES:
If defendant makes no defence, framing and recording issue by the Court does not arise. That too, in such a case, a
Court need not frame and record a issue inasmuch as the defendant makes no defence at the first hearing of the suit.
In Desi Kedri vs. Huzurabad Co¬Operative Marketing Society Ltd.,, it was held that ”Issues need not be framed
when there is no dispute with regard to material averments in the plaint.”
According to Rule 1( 4) of Order XIV of C.P.C, issues are of two kinds.
a) issues of fact,
b) issues of law.
Of course, there is another aspect of ‘ mixed question of fact and law’, which would be discussed later under the
heading of ‘preliminary issue’.
In the case of Major S.S Khanna V. Brig. F.J.Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497, it was observed as under:- “Under O. 14
R. 2 where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part
thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it
thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. The
jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the
Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the
Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be
tried by the Court: not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depends upon the decision of
issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit.”
The following ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court explain the concept of ‘Preliminary issues’ in detail.
1) O.N. Bhatnagar vs. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas and others (1982) 2 SCC 244 (para 9)
2) Roop Lal Sathi vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill (1982) 3 SCC 487 (para 24)
3) Abdulla Bin Ali and others vs. Galappa and others (1985) 2 SCC 54,
4) Indian Mineral & Chemicals Co. and others vs. Deutsche Bank (2004) 12 SCC 376
5) Exphar Sa and another vs. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. &Anr, (2004) 3 SCC 688 (para 9)
6) Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association(2005) 7 SCC 510
16. Alternate issues:- In some cases issues have to be framed in the alternative, for example in cases of Specific
Relief they may be one set and line of issues relating to the specific performance of the contract, and in the
alternative there may be another line and set of issues relating to grant of compensation case the relief of specific
performance is not granted.
17. Final and accurate issues:- Just by way of illustration in the reported in 2009(6) BCR 857 in Siddhi Chunilal
Vs. Suresh Gopkishan. (supra) in which Borkar J passed his Judgment, the required issue stated with accuracy
when viewed in this context ought to have been:
Does Plaintiff prove that he is in settled possession of the premises?
And not
Does Plaintiff prove that he is in lawful possession of the premises?
In the latter case it will cause confusion, as the question of title might then crop in leading to obfuscation of the
matter.
CAN A COURT GO INTO QUESTION AND DECIDE ANY ASPECT WITHOUT FRAMING ISSUES?
Despite issue is not framed, court has power to go into that question and decide that aspect of the subject matter in
case of sufficient evidence is adduced by both parties on pleadings . At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer ruling
in Mohd.Kareemuddn Khan vs. Syed Aza, where it was observed that Defendant pleading perfection of title by
adverse possession. Issue not framed. However, evdience adduced by both sides on the disputed matter. Court is
not barred to go into that question and decide that aspect of the matter. In another case, Sunyabasi Pikra vs.
Paramanand Ranasingh, it was held that ” Both parries have laid evidence, both documentary and oral touching
that issue. Non¬framing that particular issue is immaterial. ” It is thus clear that if the there are pleadings and
sufficient evidence is available on record, the Court can go into that question, even if issue is not framed on that
question, and decide that aspect of the matter. However, in some of the cases, the matters will be remaded to the
trial courts for failure to frame issues. In Syed Mahmood vs. Dr.Manik Chandra 1998(3) An.W.R.340, it was
observed that issues were framed and therefore, the matter remitted back to trial court no
Conclusion:-
The principles that can be deduced from the above discussion on issues: 1. Issues may be based under
Order 14 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but there is nothing to suggest that the above Order is
exhaustive and that issues cannot be framed if there are no pleadings in the case. 2. There are a fixed set of issues
for every type/genre of cases and they form the frame under which the Court should work to frame issues. Any
pleading or material outside these broad basic issues is irrelevant to the matter and ought to be discarded. 3. On
looking to the mandatory issues like limitation and jurisdiction if they are based only on pure law, and not on facts
and not being mixed questions of law and facts, the Court may proceed to decide the same under the law after
giving a hearing to both the parties. 4. If however, they are mixed questions of law and fact or questions of fact
framing an issue on the same will depend on the law of pleadings 5. The Court must decide as to what is pleaded
and what is not on adverting to the law of pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The Court must frame issues
within the broad framework given above, on seeing the factual position that is pleaded by the parties. 7. The
question of burden of proof is dependent on the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, however, all rules must
bend to the rule that the person with the best evidence must produce the same. 8. The burden of proof is fixed on a
person and never shifts, however, the onus of proof shifts from time to time. Onus of proof cannot be a matter of
issues.