ORDER Rampal Singh, J. 1. Gopal, respondent No. I, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners in the Court of Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Joura, with regard to survey Nos. 1228, 1229, 1331 and 1434, situate in village Alapur of District Morena. After the present petitioners filed their written statement in the Court the Court framed the issues. The petitioners by their inter-locutory application No.2, under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayed for framing two additional issues. The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the prayer of the petitioners. The trial Judge was of view that the proposed issues were covered by the issue No.1 framed by him. Issue No. 1 framed by the Court is "whether the defendant No.6 is the proprietor of the said lands?" 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in para-13 of the written-statement they specifically pleaded that defendant No.6 alone was not competent to enter into a contract, because in case no. 12/81-82, pending in the Tahsil Court of Joura for demarcation of the boundaries, defendant No.6 and one Prakash Chandra, both have been described as the managers of the Digamber Jain Mandir property. Hence, the proposed issues proposed by them should have been framed as additional issues. Aggrieved thereby they have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Court under section 115 of the CPC. 3. The petitioners prayed for framing of the following issues: (i) Whether Prabhudayal alone was the manager of the temple properties and was competent to enter into the contract ?; (ii) Whether the defendant No.1 in collusion with the village Patwari got her name entered illegally and if so its effect? 4. Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Material proposition are those propositions of law or facts which the plaintiff must aver or allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject matter of a distinct issue. Material proposition are those propositions of law or facts which the plaintiff must aver or allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject matter of a distinct issue. The Court should, after reading the plaint and the written-statement and after hearing the counsel for both the sides, ascertain upon the fact as to on what material proposition of fact or law the parties are at variance and then it should proceed to frame and record the issues, on which right decision of the case appears to depend. In the light of these settled principles of law it should now be examined as to whether the additional issues proposed and prayed by the petitioners should be framed as additional issues by the trial Court? 6. In the plaint it is alleged that the defendant No. 6 was the manager of the suit property and it is with him that the plaintiff entered into the contract. This fact, as alleged, has been denied by the petitioners in the written-statement. They have further pleaded in para 13 of the written-statement that defendant No.6 alone was not competent to enter into the contract, but along with him one Prakashchandra was also a co-manager of the Temple property. Thus, the material propositions alleged in the plaint have been specifically denied by the petitioners that defendant No.6 was not the manager of Digambar Jain Temple property. Thus, on this fact the pleadings of the parties are at variance and the lower Court should have framed additional issues as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. As regards the second proposed issue Shri Singhal learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the contents in para 6 of the plaint have been denied by the petitioners in para 2 of the written-statement Shri N. K. Jain learned counsel for the non-petitioners has controverted his arguments and submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is not with regard to these facts. 8. If an additional issue is unnecessary for deciding final controversy, then the prayer to frame Additional issue should be rejected. 9. The first additional issue appears to be necessary but the second additional issue is not necessary for deciding the controversy. 10. 8. If an additional issue is unnecessary for deciding final controversy, then the prayer to frame Additional issue should be rejected. 9. The first additional issue appears to be necessary but the second additional issue is not necessary for deciding the controversy. 10. In consequence, this revision petition is partly allowed and the trial Court is directed to frame the following additional issue only. "Whether Prabhudayal alone was the manager of the temple' properties and was competent to enter into the contract?" However, there shall be no order as to the costs.