AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Kapoor, J.—This revision-petition is against the order of Sub Judge I Class, Amritsar, dated 6.11.1990, whereby issue already framed was recast On the prayer made by the respondent.
Briefly stated, the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against Surjit Singh. The petitioner restraining him from demolishing laterine and open space marked ABCD in the site- plan as the same forms part of his house. This claim of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) was contested and the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 1.4,1989 dismissed the suit.
Respondent-plaintiff filed appeal before Additional District Judge, who accepted the same and remanded the case under Order 41 rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is after remand that the plaintiff filed an application under Order 14 rule 5 of the C.P.C. For recasting of issue No.3 already framed which has been granted by the impugned order.
The sole submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional District Judge remanded the case for a fresh decision as the trial court had not given its finding on issue No. 2-A and 3 and so, the trial court has got no power to amend the issues in view of remand order dated August 30,1990.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the order of the Additional District Judge dated 30.8.1990 and impugned order dated 6.11.1990 passed by Sub Judge 1st class. Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. deals with powers of the court to amend and strike out issues. The court as per this provision can at any time before passing a decree amend issues or frame an additional issue on such terms as it thinks fit and all such amendments or such additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties. The impugned order is perfectly legal and just and so does not call for any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.