B. A. Khan ( 1 ) PETITIONERS are defendants in Suit No. 330/93 filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondents seeking cancellation of sale deed in respect of plot No. 403 at Dr. Mukerjee Nagar, Delhi. They had taken a preliminary objection in their written statement that plaintiff had not paid requisite Court fee for the relief of possession. This was opposed by plaintiff in his replication saying that the suit was a mandatory suit. Trial Court framed issues in the suit including issue No. 5 which read as: "whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration and possession as prayed for" ? ( 2 ) PETITIONERS filed an application on 26. 5. 1997 for amendment of this issue. Trial Court rejected their prayer by order dated 14. 1. 1998 which is assailed in this revision petition. Their case is that once plaintiff had taken the stand that his suit was for mandatory injunction, issue No. 5 could not stand in its present form. ( 3 ) A perusal of Trial Court order shows that it had gone by the prayer made by plaintiff in the suit which was for declaration and possession. The Court had also found that plaintiff could be asked to make up any deficiency in Court-fee after the issue on this was decided. ( 4 ) I find nothing wrong in the Trial Court approach. As it is, the issues in a suit are required to be framed by Court on the pleadings of parties and there is no dispute that that plaint contained a prayer for possession. It is not that plaintiff had dropped this prayer and so long it remained intact, his evasive plea in replication could not obliterate or substitute the prayer in his plaint Moreover an issue on Court-fee payable stood already framed and plaintiff could be asked to make up the deficiency, if any, anytime during the trial. Therefore, amendment sought was unnecessary and was rightly disallowed. Petition is dismissed.