JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - Two questions have been pressed before me by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant in support of this second appeal. He has firstly contended that the trial Court omitted to frame an issue on the right of the appellant based on easement. It has been next urged that admittedly the brother of Sahdeo Ram, who was the original plaintiff in the case, namely, Badri Prasad, has been granted a lease of the land in dispute in the year 1945 and no fresh lease could be executed by the Municipal Board in favour of the original plaintiff. 2. The suit giving rise to this second appeal was one for mandatory injunction for demolition of certain constructions made by the defendant-appellant on the land shown by letters XI Al A2 in the map Paper No. 14C-2 and for possession over the land underneath the said constructions. The suit was resisted by the defendant-appellant on a number of grounds including the ground that he had a right of way over the said land which he had been exercising for more than 30 years. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the decree has been affirmed by the first Court of appeal. 3. It appears that the trial Court did not frame any issue with regard to easementary right alleged by the defendant-appellant. The question was raised before the Court of appeal and was answered by it against the defendant-appellant. The Court of appeal stated that no prejudice had been caused to the defendant-appellant on account of non-framing of the issue. It further held that no issue had been pressed on behalf of the defendant-appellant before the trial Court as regards his alleged claim based on the right of easement was concerned. 4. In my opinion, the first reason assigned by the Court of appeal is incorrect and cannot be sustained. May be that the par ties had led evidence even on the question of elementary right before the trial Court. However, the trial Court did not record any finding on the basis of the said evidence. Merely giving of an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence is not sufficient to rule out prejudices, if no finding is recorded on the basis of such evidence. An important plea thus goes completely undecided. However, the trial Court did not record any finding on the basis of the said evidence. Merely giving of an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence is not sufficient to rule out prejudices, if no finding is recorded on the basis of such evidence. An important plea thus goes completely undecided. The omission to decide a controversy by itself causes prejudice to the party who has raised it. 5. The second reason given by the Court of appeal for its decision on this point is, however, substantial and learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has not been able to meet it. I have myself gone through the Judge's notes prepared by the trial Court. While framing the issues, the trial Court has appended a note stating that the issues were read out to the counsel of the parties and they conceded that no other issue arose on the pleadings of the parties. If the concession made by the counsel for the defendant-appellant was only a slip, he could have made an application for framing an additional issue on the question of easement. He did not do so. No doubt it is the duty of the Court to frame issues in a case. The Court, however, does not carry this duty exclusively on its shoulders and it is shared by it with the parties' counsel. It is precisely for this reason that issues are read over to the parties and they are called upon to state if they require any additional issue to be framed. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 1 of O. 14 of the Civil Procedure Code is relevant in this connection and is quoted below : "At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders to 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 case appears to depend." 6. The language of the sub-rule quoted above makes it clear that the entire duty of framing the appropriate issues in a case is not that of the Court alone. The parties or their counsel are actual participants in the process of framing issues arising in a case. 7. The language of the sub-rule quoted above makes it clear that the entire duty of framing the appropriate issues in a case is not that of the Court alone. The parties or their counsel are actual participants in the process of framing issues arising in a case. 7. It may be stated that some of the pleas which are raised in the pleadings are never seriously intended. At the time of framing of issues, a counsel appearing for a party gives up certain pleas and does not press an issue on the basis of unnecessary pleas. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the Court of appeal that in the instant case, the defendant-appellant did not consider it necessary to press the issue relating to the alleged easementary rights and it was on the basis of that concession that the trial Court did not frame an issue on the said plea. 8. The second submission urged in support of the second appeal is also devoid of force. It was never urged on behalf of the defendant-appellant at any stage that the Municipal Board had granted a lease in favour of Badri Prasad in 1945 and, as such it was not competent to execute another lease in favour of the plaintiff. In case such a plea had been raised, plaintiff would have an opportunity to lead evidence to demolish the case now sought to he made out before me. It is pertinent in this connection to point out that this question was also not raised before the Court of appeal. It also does not figure in the grounds of appeal filed by the defendant-appellant before this Court. The defendant-appellant cannot he permitted to urge any ground which does not figure in the grounds of appeal and which was also not taken before the Court of appeal. 9. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed wiih costs.