Honble KEJRIWAL, J. – This revision has been directed against the order dated 26.9.1994 passed by learned Additional District Judge Karauli, in Civil Appeal No 26/92 whereby application of the plaintiffs -petitioners for framing additional issue regarding denial of title has been rejected. (2) Brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendants-non-petitioners on several grounds. The trial court framed issues on 25.9.75 but no issue regarding denial of title was framed. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.1.1982 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-petitioners on the ground that premises are required reasonably and bonafide of the personal use of plaintiffs.During the course of arguments in appeal, attention for the Court was drawn that the trial court did not record any finding re- garding partial eviction of the suit premises. In such circumstances learned Additional District Judge expressed his opinion and remanding the case for obtaining finding on the question of partial eviction from the trial court. The plaintiff-petitioners also moved an application before the learned Additional District Judge under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC and prayed that while remanding the case, additional issue regarding denial of title be also framed. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge vide his order dated 26.9.1994 , rejected the said application , Being aggrieved with the said order the plaintiffs-petitioners have filed the present revision application. (3) I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record including the impugned order and also the judgment cited by counsel for the non-petitioners. (4) Mr. Goyal counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue which the petitioners want to be framed arises from the pleadings of the parties. The petitioners will not lead any evidence and as such the learned Additional District Judge should have allowed the application framing the Additional Issue. By refusing the application, the learned Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law and in case the order passed by learned Judge is allowed to stand,it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. (5) On the other hand, counsel for the defendants-non- petitioners submits that the petitioners did not press the issue when the issues were framed. The Trial Court framed only those issues which were prayed by the parties. (5) On the other hand, counsel for the defendants-non- petitioners submits that the petitioners did not press the issue when the issues were framed. The Trial Court framed only those issues which were prayed by the parties. In such circum- stances it should be presumed that the petitioners waived the issue as prayed by them in their application under order 14 Rule 5 CPC. In support of his arguments, Mr. Gupta placed reliance on Nagappa and others vs. Siddalingapa and Ors.(1) (6) It is not in dispute that the Additional District Judge Karauli, has remitted the issue of partial eviction. Both the parties will lead on that issue. The additional issue suggested by the petitioners is based evidence on the pleadings of the parties and in case the same is framed and the trial court is directed to give its finding on the said issue, the non-petitioners are not going to be prejudiced. Counsel for the petitioners admits before me that the petitioners will not lead any evidence. If the non-petitioners want to lead evidence, they can do so before the trial court. The judgment reported in Nagappas case (supra) is distinguishable in facts.In that case the defendants requested the Court for framing additiomal issue of fact on a plea which was not raised by them in their written statement. In the present case the issue arises from the pleadings of both the parties. In my opinion the learned Judge in arbitrary way rejected the application of the petitioners for framing additional issue and in case the said order is maintained , it would occasion failure of justice. (7) Consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order dated 26.9.1994, passed by Additional District Judge. Karauli and direct him to frame additional issue of denial of title as suggested by the petitioners and remit the same for decision to the trial court .