JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - These are two revision petitions moved by Muneshwar Bux Singh against the order dated January 28, 1971 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class in a suit under Sections 229-209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, rejecting the amendment application of the revisionist as well as his application for framing additional issues on the basis of his written statement filed in the trial court on November 23, 1965. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts are as follows: Srimati Chedna Devi and nine others had filed two suits under Section 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Chheda Lal, Muneshwar Bux Singh, Hidayat Ali, Chairman Municipal Board, Nawabganj and the State of U.P. After the various defendants has filed their separate written statements, the trial court framed issues on December 10, 1965. The evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded on February 22, 1966. Thereafter the defendants did not produce their evidence on one ground and another. Muneshwar Bux Singh moved a transfer application which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner or February 27, 1967. A revision was filed in the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed. Thereafter the parties were summoned by the trial court's order dated January 11, 1971. On April 12, 1971 and April 26, 1971. Muneshwar Bux Singh, one of the defendants moved two applications one for framing additional issues, and the other for amendment in the written statement. Both these applications have been disposed of by the trial court's order dated April 28, 1971 against which the present revision has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the issue prayed to be added by the revisionist is very necessary and material, that it is the duty of the court to frame proper issues on the points raised, that the suit as framed is bad due to misjoinder of parties and causes of action, and that the trial court has erred in law in not exercising jurisdiction vested in it by law. 5. I may take up the application first. Before the trial court the plaintiffs had opposed the amendment application with the allegation that it was frivolous and mala fide and had been moved with the ulterior motive of delaying the proceedings. 5. I may take up the application first. Before the trial court the plaintiffs had opposed the amendment application with the allegation that it was frivolous and mala fide and had been moved with the ulterior motive of delaying the proceedings. The amendment sought was to the effect that the particulars of the land in suit had not been given so that it could not be specified on the spot. The trial court has found that the suit had been filed with regard to plot No. 293/1 which had been fully detailed in para 1 of the plaint and even in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 it was stated that with regard to the plot in suit the above contesting defendants and the Zamipdar and Cheda Lal, defendant No. 1, had been on litigation in so many cases. The trial court has held that this fact shows that there is no confusion about the identifiability of the land in suit. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Ram Gopal v. Bhikari, AIR 1959 Orissa 16. In this case the following observations have been made: "The only question for consideration in this matter is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the prayer for amendment of the plaint in the manner aforesaid. Under O. 6, R. 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has power to alter or amend pleadings as may be necessary. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, being the petitioners in the present application, cited before me a case decided by a division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, Chhatu Lal v. Panchanan, AIR 1953 Calcutta 755(A), (K.C. Das Gupta and Lahiri, JJ.), where it was held that when a plaintiff, after making prayers for several kinds of reliefs, wished to abandon some of these with a view to save court fees, the Court was bound to allow such an application and that whether as the result of deletion of prayer for some reliefs the suit failed or not was a matter which should be decided at the time of hearing of the suit. There Lordships in their judgment observed as follows; (paragraph 3)- "....we are clearly of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction that was vested in him to pass an order on the prayer for amendment. There Lordships in their judgment observed as follows; (paragraph 3)- "....we are clearly of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction that was vested in him to pass an order on the prayer for amendment. When a plaintiff after making prayers of several kinds of relief wishes to abandon some of these with a view to save court fees, the Court is bound to allow such application. Whether as the result of deletion of prayers for some reliefs the suit fails or not is a matter which shall be decided at the time of the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff in asking for deletion of his prayer for certain reliefs takes that risk." "I agree with this view expressed by the Calcutta High Court. In the present case, the plaintiffs were entitled to ask for deletion of the prayers i.e. prayer (a) of the plaint and substitution in its place and stead a prayer for partition as prayed for. Without expressing any views on merits, it must, however, be made clear that the plaintiffs in asking for the amendment of the plaint as prayed for were so doing at their own risk as to the ultimate fate of the suit and that one of the main questions to be decided in the suit would be whether or not there can be partition without declaration of title which has already been denied in the defendants' written statement." 6. The position in law, to my mind, is that a Court certainly has the discretion to allow the amendment in the pleadings of the parties at any stage, but such an amendment should be in order to facilitate the adjudication between the parties. Where, however, the amendment is sought to be made at a belated stage merely with a view to harass the other parties and to prolong the litigation, the Court has the full discretion to disallow the amendment application. In the present case, I am satisfied from a perusal of record that the trial court has exercised its jurisdiction in the proper manner. The amendment sought to be made by Muneshwar Bux Singh in the written statement is not only belated but its sole purpose appears to be to harass the other party and to prolong the litigation. In the present case, I am satisfied from a perusal of record that the trial court has exercised its jurisdiction in the proper manner. The amendment sought to be made by Muneshwar Bux Singh in the written statement is not only belated but its sole purpose appears to be to harass the other party and to prolong the litigation. As a matter of fact, he has by one way or the other already succeeded in prolonging the litigation for more than a decade without any ostensible progress. The trial court as well as the learned Commissioner have correctly held that the land in suit was certainly identifiable and the application for amendment was frivolous and mala fide. The trial court has, however, erred in the exercise of jurisdiction though not in rejecting the amendment application, but in also imposing Rs. 15/- as costs. There is no provision in the law by which costs can be imposed in rejecting an application for amendment in the written statement. Thus, the revision has to be allowed to this extent. 7. Now I come to the second application regarding framing of issues. Order XIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. This rule also enjoins upon the Court to ascertain upon what material proposition of fact or law the parties are at variance and thereupon frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. The main guiding principle is that the trial court should frame issues on all the important pleadings in the plaint and the written statement. Now, the revisionist has claimed that no issues have been framed on paragraphs 7, 18, 19, 21 and 26 of his written statement. In paragraph 7, the revisionist has taken the plea of continuous adverse possession for the last sixteen years. An issue on this paragraph should have been framed. The trial court has observed that as an issue about the suit being barred by time has already been framed and there was and is no question of framing of any issue on this pleading. This is not the correct view of law. As seen above, the case has a number of plaintiffs and also a number of defendants. The trial court has observed that as an issue about the suit being barred by time has already been framed and there was and is no question of framing of any issue on this pleading. This is not the correct view of law. As seen above, the case has a number of plaintiffs and also a number of defendants. It is not necessary that all revisionists may claim their joint possession. On the other hand, this is a plea taken only by one of the defendants. Thus, for proper adjudication of the case, a specific issue should have been framed on this paragraph. In paragraph 18 of the written statement, it has been alleged that the plaintiff is bound by his admission. The trial court has refused to frame an issue on this paragraph on the ground that no particulars of admission have been detailed. This shows a faulty approach. The trial court was required under the law to frame an issue on this paragraph and thereafter it could call upon the law to frame an issue on this paragraph and thereafter it could call upon the parties to produce evidence on this issue. However, the trial court is not empowered to make up its mind on an issue even without framing the issue or recording any evidence on that issue. Paragraph 19 is about limitation. I find as issue has already been framed on this. Paragraph 21 is regarding misjoinder of causes of action and parties. Framing of an issue on this plea was mandatory. I find, the trial court has failed to frame any issue on this pleading and has now rejected the prayer to frame an issue on this plea on the ground that it ought to have been pressed at an earliest hour. This is hardly a ground for refusing to frame an issue. If no issue was framed by the court, it was clearly the mistake of the court and the court should correct its mistake when it was brought to its notice. About the pleading in paragraph 22 of the written statement, it has been stated that the learned counsel for the revisionist had conceded that it was fully covered by issue No. 4. Paragraph 26 is regarding the invalidity of Waqfnama. About the pleading in paragraph 22 of the written statement, it has been stated that the learned counsel for the revisionist had conceded that it was fully covered by issue No. 4. Paragraph 26 is regarding the invalidity of Waqfnama. The trial court has erred in holding that no issue was required to be framed and was rightly not framed on this paragraph. 8. As a result of the above discussion, I find that the trial court has erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing to frame proper issues in accordance with law on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. 9. The result is that I hereby allow the revision against the trial court's order refusing the amendment application only to the extent that the portion regarding the payment of costs shall be nullified. In other respects the revision is dismissed. 10. The revision against the trial court's order regarding framing of issues is allowed and the impugned order of the trial court is set aside. The trial court shall not proceed to reframe the issues in accordance with law on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. 11. This order governs Reference Nos. 26 and 27 of 1972-73 district Bara-Banki.