JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, M. - This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, in a revision arising out of a suit under Section 229-B/276 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff brought a suit under section 229-B read with Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the defendants filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. The defendants claimed that there was separation between the family of the plaintiff and the defendants and for a just decision of the case it was essential to establish this point. Accordingly the defendant revisionist applied for framing of certain issues which were material to the decision of this acquisition of the revisionist. In the application, request was made for framing of 5 issues on the point. The trial court agreed to frame only one issue but rejected the request is respect of others issues. The Additional Commissioner in revision held that the orders of the trial court was as interlocutory order and no revision could be brought against such an order whether issues have been framed correctly or not will be examined in appeal. The revisionist has filed objection against the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner saying that the absence of the issues will prejudice the defendants in leading evidence and thus the learned trial court has failed to jurisdiction vested in it by law. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party claimed that it was merely an interlocutory order and that no revisional interference can be made by the Board. He referred to A.I.R. 1953(S.C.) page 23 to support his argument. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party claimed that it was merely an interlocutory order and that no revisional interference can be made by the Board. He referred to A.I.R. 1953(S.C.) page 23 to support his argument. 5. Order 14, Rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:- "Rule 1(5)" At the first hearing of the suit the court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after such examination of the parties as may appear necessary, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the can appears to depend." Thus this provision makes it mandatory upon the trial court to ascertain the issues of fact or law in respect of which the parties are at variance and the issues shall be so framed that a right decision in the case may be arrived at. The scope and nature of evidence that the parties would be entitled to lead, depends entirely on the framing of the issues. If an issue is framed vaguely or does not enable the parties to establish a fact or prove it otherwise, upon which the rights of the parties depend, and thus the parties are it would amount to denial of natural justice. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code reproduced above make it clear that the trial court has to exercise its mind with utmost case in this behalf. If a party is not satisfied and moved an application that certain issues should be framed, then it would be clearly the duty of the trial court to examine why the framing of the issues requested for is not necessary and record the reasons for not framing the issues desired by the parties. The discretion of the trial court in this matter has to be exercised in a judicial manner. Therefore it is clearly the duty of the trial court that it should apply its mind and give reasons why framing of certain issues pleaded by the parties are not necessary in the case. The discretion of the trial court in this matter has to be exercised in a judicial manner. Therefore it is clearly the duty of the trial court that it should apply its mind and give reasons why framing of certain issues pleaded by the parties are not necessary in the case. In as much as the trial court has filed to do so in in this case it stands to deny the parties a reasonable opportunity of leading evidence to establish or refute some points which they consider it necessary for proving their claim. To claim that in revision such orders should not be interfered with, would in my opinion not be a correct view of the powers of the Board under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. This is a clear case where the trial court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity and, therefore, revisional interference is warranted. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party pertains to the execution proceedings where in the execution case was dismissed and the application for time was refused by the court. Later the trail court restored the execution case under its inherent powers in order to rectify the mistake in dismissing the execution case. On these facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the view of the High Court that the Executing court was in error in restoring the case, and thereupon remanded the case was not correct and that under the circumstances of the case the Executing court was justified in correcting the same under inherent powers. The facts of that case are entirely different from the present case. 6. Accordingly I allow the revision, set aside the orders of the trial court and remand the case back to it for giving a hearing to the parties and then decide which of the issues should be framed or not, keeping in view the provisions of Order 14, Rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Code.