Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a civil suit pending as Civil Suit No.632/2014 before the Civil Judge, Jaitaran, in which the petitioner, Remti, sought to challenge an interlocutory order rejecting her application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for framing of an additional issue and consequential amendment of issues. The respondent, Shokin, was the opposite party. The trial court had earlier framed issues based on the pleadings, and the petitioner proposed an additional issue concerning the legal effect and efficacy of a sale deed executed by the defendant. By order dated 29.07.2026, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application, finding that the existing issues sufficiently covered the material propositions of fact and law, and the proposed issue was merely consequential. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18838/2026 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The core legal question was whether the trial court's refusal to frame an additional issue amounted to a jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227. The petitioner argued that the additional issue was necessary for proper adjudication, while the court examined the scope of Order XIV Rule 5 CPC and the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The High Court, per Justice Farjand Ali, observed that the purpose of framing issues is to ascertain precise matters in controversy and confine trial to material propositions affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Order XIV Rule 5 enables amendment or framing of additional issues only when necessary for determining the real controversy, but does not contemplate multiplication of issues or framing of an issue that is merely consequential to or overlaps with existing issues. The court found that the proposed issue regarding the legal effect and efficacy of the sale deed could be appropriately considered while appreciating pleadings and evidence in relation to Issues No.1 to 3, and did not disclose any independent material proposition. On the scope of Article 227, the court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is circumscribed, not appellate, and is exercised only to ensure subordinate courts remain within jurisdiction and act according to law. Interference is warranted only in cases of lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, patent illegality, perversity, manifest arbitrariness, or grave failure of justice. Applying these parameters, the court found no jurisdictional infirmity or perversity in the impugned order, as the trial court had considered the issues, proposed additional issue, and pleadings and rightly concluded that no additional issue was necessary. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Framing of Additional Issues - Order XIV Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Proposed issue must disclose independent material proposition; legal consequence flowing from existing issues does not necessitate separate issue - The petitioner sought framing of additional issue regarding legal effect and efficacy of sale deed executed by defendant; court found that Issues No.1 to 3 already comprehended the controversy and the proposed issue would be consequential - Held that no additional issue was necessary and trial court's rejection was proper (Paras 3-6). B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Scope of interference - Constitution of India, Article 227 - High Court's jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; interference only on jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, manifest arbitrariness or grave failure of justice - Trial court order showed no such infirmity; court declined to re-assess merits - Held that writ petition dismissed (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Trial Court's rejection of the application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing an additional issue and consequential amendment of issues suffers from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed being devoid of merit; all pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Order XIV Rule 5 CPC enables court to amend or frame additional issues only when necessary for determining real controversy
- not for multiplication or consequential issues. Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory not appellate
- exercised sparingly only in cases of jurisdictional error
- patent illegality
- perversity
- manifest arbitrariness or grave failure of justice.
