[O.14 R.5 CPC] Allowing Court To Amend, Add Or Delete Issues Intended To Conclusively Determine Controversial Points Between Parties: J&K High Court

The court has clarified that the said provision is an enabling one intended to effectually and conclusively determine the controversial points between the parties and the power under this provision is exercisable by a Court either suo-moto or an application of a party.

Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC allows courts to amend, add, delete, or strike down issues raised in a lawsuit to ensure all contentious points between parties are effectively addressed.

The case involved a dispute over land ownership between Hans Raj (petitioner) and his brother Dilbagh (respondent) in Kathua district. Dilbagh claimed Hans Raj purchased the land in question on his behalf due to his status as a non-state subject but later transferred ownership rights through a release deed. Hans Raj contested this, denying both the purchase and the deed.

The trial court framed issues based on the initial pleadings, focusing on ownership and interference with possession. However, Hans Raj later sought to add new issues through an application under Order 14 Rule 5 which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court leading to the petitioner's challenge before the High Court.

Meticulously examining the purpose of Order 14 Rule 5 Justice Wani emphasized that this rule aims to definitively determine all points of contention arising from the parties' pleadings. The court highlighted that the power to add issues can be exercised by the court itself or upon a party's application, but it's restricted by Rule 3 of Order 14.

Rule 3 dictates that issues must be framed based on the allegations in the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, produced documents, sworn statements, or arguments presented by parties or their representatives and also include witness testimonies or document inspections.

Applying these principles to the case, the High Court observed that the initial issues already encompassed the core dispute between the parties. The additional issues proposed by Hans Raj were deemed extraneous to the original pleadings and essentially repetitive of existing issues, the bench pointed.

“The additional issues proposed by the defendant/petitioner herein while laying a motion wherein the impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court ex-facie reveal and suggest that the said issues are not only extraneous to the pleadings of the parties but also in essence are covered by the issues already framed by the Trial Court”, the bench remarked.

The court thus noted that the trial court, in its impugned order dismissing Hans Raj's application had correctly considered the legal position and hence dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Hans Raj Vs Dilbagh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 81

Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate represented the petitioner.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment