HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 11. 3. 1996 passed by the Munsiff, Sidlaghatta in Kolar District, in Original Suit no. 8/89 rejecting the petitioner's application for referring the additional issue under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for decision as well as against the order allowing I. A. No. 6 filed by the respondents for the deletion of the additional issue framed on 1. 8. 1988. The additional issue that had been framed on 1. 8. 1992 reads as under; whether the first defendant is a tenant under the second defendant of the suit schedule land and whether this Court had no jurisdiction as contended in paras 11 and 12 of the written statement? this additional issue whether the first defendant is a tenant under the second defendant of the suit schedule land had been framed on 1. 8. 1992 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties especially the written statement filed by the first defendant. The first defendant moved the application (I. A. 5) praying that the additional issue may be referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, for decision and as mentioned earlier, the plaintiff moved the application (I. A. 6) under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the deletion of the said additional issue. The Trial Court deleted the additional issue and refuse to refer it to the Land Tribunal. The question of reference of the additional issue may arise only when it is found that the Court below acted illegally by deleting the additional issue. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below illegally deleted the additional issue which had been framed after hearing both the parties on the application for framing of the additional issues. Order 14 Rule 5 of the C. P. C. confers power on the Court to amend and to construct the issues. There cannot be any dispute that the Court has got power to strike out the issues. It will be appropriate at this juncture to quote Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. and the said provision reads as under : order 14 Rule 5 - Power to amend, and strike out issues. There cannot be any dispute that the Court has got power to strike out the issues. It will be appropriate at this juncture to quote Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. and the said provision reads as under : order 14 Rule 5 - Power to amend, and strike out issues. (1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced. The Court has jurisdiction to strike the issues which were unnecessary or which do not arise from the pleadings of the parties, but has wrongly been framed or introduced without there being any pleading in the written statement. It means the power to strike out the issue in respect of the issues wrongly framed or introduced i. e. , issues which do not arise from the pleadings, bus which have been introduced. In such cases, the application for striking out the issues made, the Court must apply its mind whether the issue concerned did arise from the pleadings or not and whether it was necessary for the determination of the entire controversy, if not, then the Court below could come to the conclusion that it was wrongly framed or introduced as it did not arise from the pleadings or the material on which the issues are to be framed. In the present case, it appears that the Court below has not applied its mind to these aspects of the matter. The approach of the Court is based on misconstruction of the order of this Court in CRP. No. 5122/91 etc. In the present case, it appears that the Court below has not applied its mind to these aspects of the matter. The approach of the Court is based on misconstruction of the order of this Court in CRP. No. 5122/91 etc. indicate the reasoning of the Court, it would be appropriate to quote paragraph 11 of the order of the Court below, which reads as under:"on the other hand Sri D. L. Prasad, learned Counsel for the first defendant has argued that the additional issue framed by this Court is un-necessary issue and it is framed on the basis of the written statement filed by the first defendant and also before framing this additional issue this Court heard on both sides and on the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC is filed by the first defendant and after on 1. 8. 1992. But in the Revision petition filed by th first defendant as against thai order passed by this Hon'ble Court regarding tenancy matter in IA. No. 3 filed under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and at the time of the arguments this fact is brought to she notice of the karnataka High Court and in that Revision Petition i. e. , CRP No. 5122/91 and our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had clearly observed that if there is such issue was framed by the Trial judge plaintiff is at liberty and can take necessary steps to delete such issue. So on that observation filed this application. But plaintiff has not filed such type of application. Hence this application, therefore the principle of resjudicate will not attract and plaintiff is not previously to file this application. Since even hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has clearly observed in the revision Petition filed by the first defendant himself. Therefore, there is enough grounds to delete the additional framed by the court as the application filed by the first defendant and also this subject matter of suit and tenancy issued by first defendant is not one and the same and therefore and I answer point No. 2 as affirmative. Therefore, there is enough grounds to delete the additional framed by the court as the application filed by the first defendant and also this subject matter of suit and tenancy issued by first defendant is not one and the same and therefore and I answer point No. 2 as affirmative. "the Trial Court refers to the earlier revision and the earlier application under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and assumes that the Court when has given opportunity to the revision Petitioner in that case i. e. , the present respondent that if any issue regarding the tenancy rights of the defendant have been framed, he may apply for deletion of such issue. The Trial Court opined as if this Court has directed that as soon as the application for deletion of the additional issue is made, the Court should delete it even without applying its mind. This mistaken notion of the Court on which the Trial Court has proceeded to deal with the issue as will appear from paragraph 11 of the order. In the earlier revision i. e. , C. R. P. No. 5122/1991, this Court has observed that the learned Munsiff has rejected the earlier application under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, amongst other things on the ground that the absence of any issue about the tenancy rights. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. B. Murgod, on the material available before him has observed that the learned Munsiff come to the conclusion that there is no tenancy involved and the land claimed by the revision petitioner as cultivated by him as tenant was not the suit land involved in the redemption suit. No tenancy issue had been framed or got framed before passing of the order by the Munsiff on 18. 9. 1991. The Munsiff definitely could be justified in rejecting the application under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. B. Murgod in paragraph 5 has observed as under: 'the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that subsequent to the impugned order, an issue with regard to tenancy has been framed by the learned Trial Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. B. Murgod in paragraph 5 has observed as under: 'the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that subsequent to the impugned order, an issue with regard to tenancy has been framed by the learned Trial Judge. With regard to that the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that he is not aware of the developments in the suit and even if there is such an issue framed, his client would take steps to get that issue deleted. Be that as it may, there is no valid reason to interfere with the order under challenge in this Revision Petition. It is open to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner to agitate the matter in an appropriate forum for relief if so advised. " a perusal of the above paragraph 5 does not indicate vide the order passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. B. Murgod, directed the munsiff to delete the additional issue, it is only when it was pointed out that additional issue had been framed about the tenancy rights after passing of the order dated 18. 9. 1991 impugned in the said revision Petition, the learned Counsel for the respondents in the said Revision Petition indicated or pleaded his ignorance and then he submitted that his client would take steps to get that additional issue deleted. This was the statement of the learned Counsel. The hon'ble Judge observed that even if the additional issue has been framed the impugned order dated 18. 9. 1991 could not be interfered on that basis. It is open to the revision petitioner to take fresh steps before the proper, forum. Therefore it is, and has been for the first defendant (revision petitioner herein) to move the Court afresh under section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for reference of the additional issue and it is kept open to the plaintiff that if he wants to make any application for deletion, he may do so, but it did not mean that as soon as the application is made the additional issue should be deleted without applying its mind to the relevant questions viz. , 1) Whether the issue did arise from the pleadings or the material referred in Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. ? 2) Whether it is, was necessary for the decision of the controversy? , 1) Whether the issue did arise from the pleadings or the material referred in Order 14 Rule 5 C. P. C. ? 2) Whether it is, was necessary for the decision of the controversy? or 3) Whether it was a issue not arising from the pleadings and was wrongly introduced? the Court below in my opinion had not applied its mind and and when it has not applied its mind, in my opinion it acted illegally and committed substantial material irregularity in passing the order deleting the issue as well as the rejecting the application (I. A. 5) and allowing I. A. 6. The pleadings have been placed before me. I have seen the written statement. In paragraph 5 of the written statement the defendant has asserted himself to be a tenant and cultivating the land as tenant of Sy. Nos. 26, 32, 45/1 and 115. The defendant has stated the facts in relation to Form No. 7. As such, in my opinion, the issue whether the defendant is a tenant or has been tenant of the land in question i. e. , Sy. No. 45/1 has been a material issue to be decided and in view of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, the Civil Court could not decide that issue and the same had to be referred to the Land Tribunal for decision. Thus considered, in my opinion, the order passed by the Munsiff, Sidlaghatta, on 11. 3. 1996 suffers from jurisdictional error when the Court below rejected I. A. 5 and refused to make reference to the Land Tribunal, allowed the application (I. A. 6) and deleted the additional issue on the question of tenancy rights as framed on 1. 8. 1992. The Court below has not recorded any finding either the issue was wrongly framed or introduced without there being any plea in the written statement. In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 11. 3. 1996 impugned in this revision petition is set aside and if it is allowed to exist and to continue and stand, it may result in mis-trial causing injury. In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 11. 3. 1996 impugned in this revision petition is set aside and if it is allowed to exist and to continue and stand, it may result in mis-trial causing injury. The additional issue on the question of tenancy as framed by the Court below on 1st August 1992 is restored and the Trial Court is directed to consider the petitioner's application for reference of the issue under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to the Land Tribunal afresh. The Munsiff is directed to pass fresh orders thereof. --- *** --- .