JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 20.3.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code was rejected. 2. The plaintiffs non-petitioners filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendant-tenant neither tendered nor paid any rent for the last more than six months. 3. The defendant-tenant-petitioner admitted that he is the tenant in the suit shop but the shop was let out to him by Karnaram in the year 1957 as Karta of the Hindu Family. However on 19.7.1995, a new rent note was got executed, which is a registered document and by virtue of that new rent note, he became the tenant of Mishirilal who is also one of the legal heirs of deceased Karnaram. The defendant also denied that the plaintiffs have got any reasonable and bona fide personal necessity. It was further averred that the defendant ever committed any default in payment of rent and he is regularly paying the rent to Shri Mishirilal, in whose favour, the rent note was executed. The defendant also prayed that if the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the rent, the same may be determined. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 11 Issues. 5. After the framing of Issues, an application under Order 14, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code was moved by the defendant-petitioner for framing some additional Issues and for deleting certain Issues and for splitting of Issue No. 3. That application was hotly contested by the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit was filed some 20 years ago and the parties have led their evidence and now the case is at a final stage. Issues were framed in the presence of the parties and that too with the consent of the parties. The defendant- petitioner did not raise any objection regarding any issue so far. The defendant- petitioner was thus conscious of the dispute existing between the parties and the Issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings. Both the parties have led evidence. The defendant- petitioner did not raise any objection regarding any issue so far. The defendant- petitioner was thus conscious of the dispute existing between the parties and the Issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings. Both the parties have led evidence. The plaintiffs therefore, prayed that at such a belated stage, there is absolutely no necessity for framing of additional issue or for detecting of any Issue. However, after hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 14, Rule 5 C.P.C. 6. The learned trial Court held that regarding default, Issue No. 4 has already been framed and regarding determination of rent, the learned trial Court was of opinion that at this stage, there is no necessity to determine the rent. 7. I have heard Mr. A.L. Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishri Lai, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners and have carefully gone through the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was the duty of the trial Court to have framed the correct issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. He has submitted that since correct issues based on the pleadings of the parties have not been framed in the case and as such, the learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in refusing to frame the additional Issue. According to him, adjudication of additional Issue was necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties. 9. It was contended that Issue No. 3 has not been properly framed. In fact, it comprises of two Issues and burden of each Issue was separate. He has, therefore, prayed that for proper determination of the controversy involved in the case, Issue No.3 ought to have been split and two separate Issues should have been framed. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Santlal v. Harbans Singh, 1972 RLW 657 and Smt. Homat Dinshaw Irani v. Tehmatan, 1994 (1) Cur Civ Cas 118 . 10. On the other hand; the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-non- petitioners has supported the impugned order of the learned trial Court and submitted that Issues were framed with the consent of the parties and parties led evidence with full knowledge of the Issues framed and the controversy existing between the parties. 10. On the other hand; the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-non- petitioners has supported the impugned order of the learned trial Court and submitted that Issues were framed with the consent of the parties and parties led evidence with full knowledge of the Issues framed and the controversy existing between the parties. Hence, at this belated stage, if additional Issues are recast the parties will be driven to the necessity to lead evidence and denovo trial may eventually result, which is not at all warranted by law. In support of his contention, he has referred to Budha v. Bedariya, AIR 1981 Madhya Pradesh 76 ; Govigowda v. Kalegowda, AIR 1996 Kar. 131 and R.B. Bharatha Charyulu v. R.B. Alivelu Manga Thayaru, AIR 1996 Andhra Pradesh 238 . 11. I have considered the rival contentions made at the bar. It maybe stated that on 5.8.1996, this Court passed an order to the effect that learned counsel for the respondents No. 1,, 2 and 4 Shri M.L. Chhangani filed a written undertaking that the above named respondents were waiving their right to claim eviction on ground of default as provided under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act even when the relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the parties herein and if any decree for arrears of rent is passed, the same will be executed for the recovery of that amount only. 12. I have perused the pleadings as well as the Issue and I feel no hesitation in remarking that in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent many Issues which are not at all relevant for the disposal of the suit of this nature have been framed. Many of the Issues are improper and they ought to have been avoided. Specific reference may be made to Issues No. 1 and 2. Be that as it may, since both the parties have led evidence on the issues framed by the trial Court on the pleadings of the parties, improper framing of Issues will not materially affect the rights of the parties because both the parties led evidence with knowledge of the Issues framed in the suit. Both the parties knew what evidence they were expected to lead. If any new Issues are framed at this stage, sort of denovo trial may result in the suit which was instituted some 20 years ago. Both the parties knew what evidence they were expected to lead. If any new Issues are framed at this stage, sort of denovo trial may result in the suit which was instituted some 20 years ago. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the Issues already framed in the case. 13. For the same reason, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Issue No. 3 may be split out. While leading evidence, the defendant was well aware of the import of this Issue. Both the parties did not make any grievance regarding improper framing of Issues at any stage. Moreover, the application of the defendant is highly belated and it requires no consideration at this stage. 14. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******