JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6-12-1988 passed by VIII Addl. District Judge, Meerut, allowing the application for the deletion of certain issues in suit No. 1033 of 1985 (Mukut Lal & anr. v. Rameshwar Dayal & ors.). 2. In brief the facts are that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed a petition, in the court of 1st Civil Judge, Meerut, which was registered as suit No. 1033 of 1985 titled as Mukut Lal Agarwala anr. v. Rameshwar Dayal & ors., under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act praying that the opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 4 (presently opposite parties Nos. 3, 4, and 5) be ordered to file the original award and the entire documents relating thereto and such award be made the rule of the Court. It was mentioned in para 9 of the petition which is reproduced below. "That the petitioners and the opposite party No. 1 agreed that the disputes whether there was any family settlement in the year 1972 or whether the properties and business existing on 31-3-81 were all joint" was referred to the Arbitration of opposite parties No. 2, 3,4 for adjudication." It is further alleged by the present opp. parties No. 1 and 2 that the arbitrators entered into reference and gave their award on 26-10-1985 and a copy thereof was received on 28-10-1985 by them. 3. The (Opposite Party No. 1 in the suit) present applicant filed a detailed written statement and the factum of an agreement as envisaged by the Arbitration Act or for the reference of any dispute to arbitration was emphatically denied. At this stage it may not be necessary to go into the other allegations as set forth in the written statement. It may also be mentioned that opposite party No. 1 (applicant) in the case also filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act which were registered as Misc. Case,. Scanning of such objections at this stage would also be a futile exercise as the matter is pending before the Trial Court 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties that Trial Court on 24-2-1987 framed the following issues: "(1) Whether there was valid agreement between the parties for arbitration in between the plaintiff and defendants Nos. Case,. Scanning of such objections at this stage would also be a futile exercise as the matter is pending before the Trial Court 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties that Trial Court on 24-2-1987 framed the following issues: "(1) Whether there was valid agreement between the parties for arbitration in between the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 7 (2) Whether there was no valid reference to the arbitrator as alleged? If so, its effect? (3) Whether the arbitrators have misconducted themselves and the proceedings? (4) Whether the arbitration is invalid and illegal? (5) Relief." 5. During the pendency of the proceedings parties filed certain in documents and various applications. An application was also filed by the application before the Trial Court for the amendment of the written statement. Consequent to the allowing of this application an application was filed by the applicant for framing of additional issues which were accordingly done on 28-8-1987 and following issues were struck. "(6). Whether there was any dispute regarding any joint Hindu family properties between the parties which could be referred to arbitration? (7). Whether Mukut Lal himself was an Arbitration mediator in the matter and if so, its effect? (8). Whether the so called award was necessary to the stamped and registered and whether the same is inadmissible in evidence? (9). Whether Smt. Bhagwati Devi was a member of Joint Hindu Family and what is the effect of non joinder or non-inclusion of Smt. Bhagwati Devi in the proceedings and the suit? (10). Whether the so called award is lime-barred? (11). Whether the award has been improperly procured? (12). What is the effect of non-substitution of Sri Krishna Bhai as a mediator or arbitrator in place of Sri Mukat Lal after his resignation. (13). Whether Sri Ved Prakash ever acted as a mediator or arbitrator or whether he resigned from his post? If so, its effect? (14). Whether the Arbitrators have misconducted themselves and the proceedings as alleged in amended paras 25 and 26 of the petition? (15). Whether the so called award is otherwise invalid and un-executed? (16). Whether the alleged award is vague and hence is liable to be set aside. 6. The applicant thereafter filed an application for directing the petitioner opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to adduce necessary evidence as the burden of proof on many issues lies on them. (15). Whether the so called award is otherwise invalid and un-executed? (16). Whether the alleged award is vague and hence is liable to be set aside. 6. The applicant thereafter filed an application for directing the petitioner opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to adduce necessary evidence as the burden of proof on many issues lies on them. This application was rejected by the Trial Court on 19-10-1987 where upon the applicant preferred a revision which was allowed by this court with the direction that the petitioner in leading case No. 1033 of 1985 shall lead evidence first. Again the applicant filed an application for deciding issues Nos. 1 and 2 as preliminary issues but this application was rejected by the Trial Court on 17-8-1988. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 then filed an application for delaying issues Nos. 6, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 16 on the ground that they are repetitions of earlier issues and further some of them are beyond the scope of inquiry of the present case. Objection against this application were filed by the applicant. The Trial Court by a reasoned order allowed this application for deleting issues Nos. 6, 9, 14 and 15 vide its order dated 6-12-1988. 7. Aggrieved against this order dated 6-12-1988 the applicant has filed the present revision. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. Without going into the merits of the respective contentions advanced at bar it may be mentioned that the striking of the issues as contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure do not adjudicate or determine the list between the parties. It is settled law that the issues are struck on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the power to frame additional issues is a discretionary power of the Trial Court. Additional issues may be framed if it is considered necessary for determining the lis between the parties Similarly issues can be deleted if for a proper adjudication of the controversy they are repetition of the issues already framed. Amendment of issues is the discretion of the Trial Court. No right or obligation of party is determined either by refusing to delete the issues or to add more to them. It is only a procedural matter. The Trial Court is required to determine the controversy between the patties. Amendment of issues is the discretion of the Trial Court. No right or obligation of party is determined either by refusing to delete the issues or to add more to them. It is only a procedural matter. The Trial Court is required to determine the controversy between the patties. The burden of proof that there existed an arbitration agreement which may provide for reference of dispute to arbitration is on a party claiming benefit of such agreement and this is amply revealed in issue No. 1 which provides "whether there was a valid agreement between the parties for arbitration i.e. between the petitioners and defendants Nos. 1 and 2. This would certainly cover issues Nos. 6 and 9. Further issues Nos. 14 and 15 are repetition of issues Nos. 3 and 4. In any case the deletion of issues Nos. 6, 9, 14 and 15 do not in any way prejudice the parties as the postulates of the "arbitration agreement being in writing" has to be established. It is on the existence of such an agreement that the dispute can be referred to arbitration. Only where such an agreement exists then the parties would succumb to arbitration. It is manifestly clear that the party relying on an arbitration agreement will have to establish its existence and that is fully enveloped in issue No. 1. 9. In view of the above it is clear that the Trial Court did not commit any illegallity or acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction and this revision is an exercise in futility and is reflective of the fierce litigation between the parties, it is not meritted and thus deserves to be dismissed. 10. The revision is accordingly dismissed.