( 1 ) THIS revision petition with CRP. 2363/73 has been referred by Bhimiah, j. , to a Bench of two Judges fop hearing and disposal as there are conflicting views expressed by learned single Judges of this Court on the, question whether a, revision under S. 115 of CPC lies against an order allowing or refusing an application to frame an additional issue, or to recast an issue already framed. ( 2 ) IN N. H. Gouda Patil v. B. S. Patil, 1 LR. 684; Sajdasivayya, J. (as he then was) has ruled that a revision lies in such matters. That was also the view taken in Venkateshwara Rao v. Ammepeddiah, CRP. 2003/73 and in Kotiswaramma v. Venkateswara Rao, CRP. 1994/73. But, recently in Bhajanemane Narasimha Reddy v. Nanjunda Reddy, CRP. 1272/73 and in Ramappa v. Syed Ahmed, CRP. 1387/73; Jagannatha shetty, J. took a contrary view holding that the expression, 'case decided' does not comprehend within its ambit an order allowing or refusing an application to frarne an additional issue or to recast an issue. ( 3 ) ORDINARILY, the High Court will not interfere with an order allowing or refusing amendment of issues, deletion qf issues or addition of issues. That is the view taken not only by this High Court but also by other High courts. The only other decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents is Manickavachakam v. Offcl. Receiver, Negapatnam, AIR. 1939 Mad. 733; but that decision does not lay down that under no circumstances a, revision lies under S. 115 of the Code against an order allowing or refusing amendment of issues. This is what Burn J. has stated in the said case :"it is the, duty of this Court to interfere in revision to correct lower Cqurts when they act perversely; it can never be said that we should interfere with them in revision merely because they have decided wrongly. It is not, in my opinion, any part of the legitimate duties of this Court to help lower Courts to frame issues. They alone, have jurisdiction to frame the issues in the suits which come before them for trial, and they have jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. " ( 4 ) IN Bhaskar v. Narandas, AIR. 1966 Bom. They alone, have jurisdiction to frame the issues in the suits which come before them for trial, and they have jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. " ( 4 ) IN Bhaskar v. Narandas, AIR. 1966 Bom. 608, Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) while dealing with the scope of the powers of revision in the High Court in dealing with interlocutory orders has stated thus :"it is well settled that in its revisional jurisdiction this Court does not usually interfere with interlocutory orders. The framing of issues or the refusal to frame issues, granting a request for amendment of the pleading or refusing to allow arnendment of the pleadings, are matters which are in the discretion of the learned trial Judge, and the decision of the learned trial Judge in such discretionary matters is not usually open to be revised by this Court. But where, in exercising his discretionary powers, the learned Judge acts unreasonably and even capriciously this Court undoubtedly can and must interfere, with the capricious exercise, of such discretionary powers. " ( 5 ) SADASIVAYYA J. , (as he then was) in the case of N. H. Gmida Patil said:"where, the, interests of justice make it necessary that the high Court ought to, interfere under certain circumstances, then the high Court may have to interfere even before the final decision in the case. "ordinarily, the High Court will not interfere in the master of settlement of issues or the amendment of issues. It can nevep be said that the high Court should interfere in revision to correct the lower Courts whenever they cast the burden of proof on the wrong party or where the necessary issues that arise on the pleadings have not been raised. It is no part of the legitimate duties of the High Court to help the subordinate Courts to frame issues. The trial Courts alone have the jurisdiction to frame issues in the suits which come before them for trial. It is they ajpne that have the jurisdiction to amend, delete, or add issues. Such power can be exercised by the trial Courts at any stage before the decree is passed. But where it is shown that the trial Judge has acted perversely in allowing or refusing an application for amendment of issues, it is the duty of the High court to interfere in revision to correct the lower Courts. Such power can be exercised by the trial Courts at any stage before the decree is passed. But where it is shown that the trial Judge has acted perversely in allowing or refusing an application for amendment of issues, it is the duty of the High court to interfere in revision to correct the lower Courts. ( 6 ) THE trial Court has the jurisdiction to cast the issues rightly as well as wrongly. Therefore, its order, on an application for the arnendment or addition of issues does not fall within Cl. (a) or (b) of S. 115 of the Code. But, when it acts perversely, its order will come within the scope of Cl, (c) of Sec. 115 of the Code, which empowers the High Court tq call for the record qf any case which has been decided by any Court, subordinate to it and in which no, appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. ( 7 ) MUTHUSWAMI Ayyar J. in Krishamma Naidu v. Chapa Naidu, ILR. 17 Mad. 410 FB; while considering the scope of S. 622 CPC (Central Act XIV of 1882) which corresponds to S. 115 of the Code, said ;"the case contemplated by the words 'act illegally or with materialy irregularity 'is that of perverse decision on a question of la,w qr procedure. A decision can be said to be perverse only when the matter is pleaded and wilfully disregarded, or when there is some conscious violation of a rule of law or of procedure on the part of a Subordinate court. " ( 8 ) THE power of revision under S. 115 of the Code is discretionary. If the trial Court does not frame the issuers properly, there is the appellate Court where proper issues can be formulated and findings given. If the trial Court has failed to franie any issue, there is power under the Code for the appellate court to frame an issue and call for a finding an such issue from the trial Court. Therefore, the High Court ordinarily, does not interfere with the orders of the trial Courts allowing or refusing amendments or addition of issues on applications by one or other of the parties. Therefore, the High Court ordinarily, does not interfere with the orders of the trial Courts allowing or refusing amendments or addition of issues on applications by one or other of the parties. But that does not mean that the Court kas no power to correct an error where the order of the trial Court is perverse in the sense that where there is a conscious violation of a rule of law or prqcedure, on the part of the subordinate Court. It is purely academical to go into the question whether an order as in the instant case comes within the scope of the expression, 'cape decided'; apart from the powers under S. 115 of the Code the High Court has jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constn. to correct errors of all Courts and tribunals. In view of the existence of the power under Art. 227 of the consln. to correct errors where it' is absolutely called for and necessary in the interest of justice, the dode of Civil Procedure (Amendment Bill 74) has deleted S. 115. The reason given for the proposal to delete, S. 115 is that adequate remedy is provided for under Art. 227 for correcting cases of excess of jurisdiction, or non-exercise cf jurisdiction or illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and therefore the section is no longer necessary and is therefore being omitted. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, we have to examine the facts and see, whether our power under S. 115 of the Code should be exercised to correct the errors in the order of the Court below. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration of title and for injunction. In the plaint they alleged that one late siddappa who was the admitted owner of the suit properties had executed a deed of adoption purporting to adopt defendant 1, but that adoption deed was a nominal document brought into existence to satisfy the second wife of the said Siddappa and that the adoption of defendant 1 is not true and valid. Therefore, they claimed that they are entitled to the, suit properties as the legal heirs of the said Siddappa. Defendant 1 contended that he is the validity adopted son of the said late Siddappa, and denied the allegations of the plaintiffs. Therefore, they claimed that they are entitled to the, suit properties as the legal heirs of the said Siddappa. Defendant 1 contended that he is the validity adopted son of the said late Siddappa, and denied the allegations of the plaintiffs. Among other issues, the trial Court framed issue no. 1 which reads :"whether the plaintiffs prove that the adoption of 1st defendant by Siddappa is false and deed of adoption is made to satisfy his 2nd wife Kallayva? So he does not derive any title to property?"i. A. No. 8 was filed by the plaintiffs under Or. 14, R. 5 CPC to correct a clerical mistake in issue No. 7 and further to raise an additional issue to the effect, whether the first defendant is the adopted son of the deceased siddappa. The mistake, in issue No. 7 was not disputed arid therefore, the cqrrection has been allowed. In regard to the addiional issue sought, the court below was of the opinion that the said issue is involved in issue No. 1 and therefore, it is not necessary to frame the same. In the opinion of the, court below, in view of the naure of the pleadings, the initial burden is on the plaintiffs on issue No. l which will be shifted on to defendant 1 to prove that he has been validly adopted. ( 10 ) WE do not want to express any opinion as to whether the burden of proof has been rightly cast. The parties know what they have to prove and therefore, they have to lead evidence on the question of the adoption of defendant 1. If the trial Court has wrongly cast the burden on the plaintiffs, the same can be corrected by the appellate Court. It cannot be said that the order of the Court below in any sense is a perverse order in which case alone, we will be justified in interfering.- for the reasons stated above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .