Honble YAMIN, J. – This is a revision against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated 5.6.1993 by which he refused to amend issues and refused to frame proposed issues suggested by the plaintiff. In order to understand controversy, it is necessary that the case of the parties may be mentioned. (2). Plaintiff petitioner is a firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act. This firm has been carrying on the business of manufacturing R.C.C. Pipes. The Superintendent Engineer, Bhilwara, issued two tender notices which contained specific conditions that the pipes would be inspected and checked by the officer of P.W.D. at the factory premises of the plaintiff firm before delivery thereof. Plaintiff firm submitted tenders and his rates approved. When the plaintiff firm submitted tenders, there was specific mention that if required, inspection may be conducted at the premises of the factory at Jodhpur at the risk and cost of the non-petitioners. On 4.2.1985, the Superintending Engineer placed order the petitioner firm for supplying of pipes as detailed in para No.5 of the revision. In the order to itself, the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. mentioned that the inspection would be conducted by the departmental representatives at the factory on hearing from supplier. After the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Bhilwara, placed order for supplying the R.C.C. Pipes, plaintiff firm requested for having inspection of pipes which were ready for supply. Consequently, Shri H.C. Mathur, Assistant Engineer, was deputed for the purpose. Shri Mathur did not come for inspection. Instead one K.R. Shah, Assistant Engineer of Nimbahera Sub-Division who was duly authorised, came to Jodhpur on 21.3.1985 for inspection and he did inspect and test pipes which were in stock at the relevant time. They were required according to the norms and standard fixed by I.S.I. He signed all the inspected and tested pipes which were ready for supply. He also forwarded his inspection and testing report to the Superintending Engineer, Bhilwara, from Jodhpur on 21.3.1985. The plaintiff firm supplied pipes worth Rs. 68,943.34 as detailed in para No. 11 of the revision. These all details are on the record. Bills were also sent and a cheque also given to the plaintiff but the same was dishonour because payment was stopped. The plaintiff firm supplied pipes worth Rs. 68,943.34 as detailed in para No. 11 of the revision. These all details are on the record. Bills were also sent and a cheque also given to the plaintiff but the same was dishonour because payment was stopped. Plaintiff had to file a civil suit in which the following two issues were framed by the trial court: (i) Whether Shri Jugal Kishore & Smt. Usha Mehta are the partners of the plaintiff firm? (ii) Whether the goods supplied by the plaintiff firm to the Executive Engineers, P.W.D. Division-I and II, Bhilwara as mentioned in para No.12 of the plaint was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the same was as per the I.S.I. Specification or standard the same was supplied after the inspection and testing by the authorised officer, Shri K.R. Shah? (3). On 16.7.1992, plaintiff proposed the following issues instead : ``Whether the goods supplied by the plaintiff firm to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division I and II, Bhilwara, as mentioned in the para No. 12 of the plaint was not in accordan- ce with the terms and conditions of the contract and the same was of sub-standard or was not as per the I.S.I. specification by the reasons, duly mentioned in paras No. 11, 12, 21 & 22 of the written statement and on the basis of inspection and testing reports dated 4.5.1985 and 18.5.1985 of the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., City Sub-Division, Bhilwara (Shri M.G. Beg) and the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., District Sub- Division, Bhilwara (Shri G.K. Pagral)? (4). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as issues No.1 is concerned, he does not press much about its delition. But for issue No. 2, he has submitted that in view of the fact that the goods were ready for inspection and they were inspected and supplied, the proposed issue is necessary so that burden may be on the defendant to prove that the goods supplied were not I.S.I. specification or standard and were not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and were of sub-standard. He has submitted that issue No.2 may be deleted and proposed issue may be allowed to be framed. (5). He has submitted that issue No.2 may be deleted and proposed issue may be allowed to be framed. (5). On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner submitted that the learned lower court has not acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegal or material irregularity, therefore, this court should not interfere u/s 115, C.P.C. in the order of the learned lower court. He has based his arguments on the contention that there is distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof and onus does not shift, hence, he has submitted that when the evidence of both the parties will be recor- ded, onus of proof may shift in case the plaintiff proves that he has supplied the goods according to the conditions of the contract. (6). The learned counsel for the respondents has cited, Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. & Anr. vs. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co. (1), wherein it has been held as follows : ``The power to frame additional issues is a discretionary power of the trial court. Additional issues may be framed if the court thinks necessary for determining the matter in controversy. By an order refusing to frame additional issues or allowing an application for framing of additional issues no right or obligation of the parties in controversy is adjudicated upon by the court. It is a matter only of procedure. The court, after examining the pleadings and other material on record as required under R. 3, O 14, C.P.C., may frame the issues. Since no right or obligation of a party is determined by an order refusing to frame additional issues such an order cannot be held to be deciding a case between the parties and would not come within the ambit of the expression `case which has been decided. Similar would be the position in regard to an order by which additional issues are framed or amended. (7). When issues were framed, burden was put on the plaintiff to prove that the goods supplied by him was of I.S.I. standard and was supplied on the basis of inspection and test report dated 21.3.1985 prepared by Shri R.K. Shah. When the plaintiff averred that the hapenning should take place in the manner the lower court was right in framing the issues as it stands as issue No.2. When the plaintiff averred that the hapenning should take place in the manner the lower court was right in framing the issues as it stands as issue No.2. It appears that the peti- petitioner plaintiff wants that the burden should be shifted on the defendant and that is why he has proposed the issues as stated above. Since the onus of proof shifts and it is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, I am of the view that there is no necessity to amend or reframe the issue as proposed by the petitioner plaintiff. There appears to be no illegality in exercising its jurisdiction or there is no material irregularity in exercising the jurisdiction by rejecting the application of the plaintiff petitioner by the learned trial court. Therefore, this revision has no merit and should be dismissed. (8). This revision is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs.