JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the order sought to be impugned in this writ petition as made by the learned trial court on 27.09.2007 rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC remains valid and justified; and this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 02.10.2004 for sale of a plot of land for a consideration of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The plaintiff has averred that the defendant received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.3,75,000/- was to be received within four months and sale-deed was to be executed. The defendant in his written statement (Annex.2) has stated about previous litigation concerning the land in question between himself and the Municipal Council, Bhilwara and has, inter alia, alleged that his counsel in the said suit Shri Gopal Ajmera, who is in relation brother of the present plaintiff, got executed the sale agreement in question; and that the said amount of Rs.50,000/- was never received by the defendant but remained with the said Shri Gopal Ajmera only. The defendant has also referred to the other facts and factors including the fact that the agreement in question could have been put to performance only if the Municipal Council would have executed sale-deed in favour of the present defendant and for the Municipal Council not doing so, the agreement was rendered void and ineffective; and has also alleged that the plaintiff terminated the agreement and the amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be returned to the plaintiff by the said Shri Gopal Ajmera only. The learned trial court has framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the case. The learned trial court has framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the case. " 1- vk;k izfroknh us oknxzLr Hkw[k.M fn0 2-10-2004 dks 4]25]000@& esa oknh dks fodz; djus dk vuqca/k dj nLrkost fu"ikfnr fd;k vkSj 50 gtkj :0 izfrQy dh jkf'k izkIr dh\ & oknh 2- vk;k oknh lafonk ds rgr vius Hkkx dh ikyuk djus gsrq lnSo rRij jgk gS o gS\ & oknh 3- vk;k oknh lafonk dh fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk izfroknh ls djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\& oknh 4- vk;k oknxzLr Hkw[k.M izfroknh fdlh vU; dks varfje vkfn ugha djsa bl ckcr~ oknh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh 5- vk;k 50 gtkj :0 izfrQy dh jkf'k e/;LFk Jh xksiky vtesjk ds ikl gh jgh izfroknh dks izkIr ugha gqbZ vkSj ckn esa oknh us lkSnk lekIr dj fn;k tSlk fd tokc ds iSjk la0 2 esa vafdr gS\ & izfroknh 6- vk;k oknxzLr Hkw[k.M dh jftLV~h uxj ifj"kn ls izfroknh ds i{k esa gksuk laHko ugha Fkk bl dkj.k ls bdjkj Lor% gh lekIr gks x;k gS\ & izfroknh 7- vuqrks"k\ " 3. The plaintiff-petitioner, by moving the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC (Annex.4) sought deletion of issues Nos. 1, 2 & 3 with the submissions that the factum of agreement is not in dispute and, therefore, issue No.1 has unnecessarily been framed; that issue No.2 is unnecessary and not arising out of the case set up by the parties; and similarly, issue No.3 was superfluous. 4. By the order impugned, the learned trial court has rejected the application with the observations that though there is no dispute raised by the defendant about execution of the agreement but he has raised the dispute about the amount of Rs.50,000/- and both these facts being inter-related, issue No.1 has been framed accordingly. The learned trial court has also observed that whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and is entitled to the relief of specific performance were the questions relevant, and therefore, issues Nos. 2 & 3 have been framed. 5. Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sachin Acharya has strenuously contended that issue No.1 as framed in this case is entirely irrelevant and unnecessarily the burden of proof of a fact that is not in dispute has been put on the plaintiff. 2 & 3 have been framed. 5. Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sachin Acharya has strenuously contended that issue No.1 as framed in this case is entirely irrelevant and unnecessarily the burden of proof of a fact that is not in dispute has been put on the plaintiff. Learned counsel has referred to the pleadings particularly as taken by the defendant in his written statement to urge that the factum of agreement is not at all in dispute and when the defendant has not denied execution of the document and has rather reproduced the contents thereof in his written statement, there was no reason to frame an issue such as issue No.1 in this case. 6. Learned counsel further contended that the defendant has not raised any such question if the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and, thus, issue No.2 remains unnecessary; and similarly, according to the learned counsel, issue No. 3 does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties and has unnecessarily been framed. 7. A comprehensive look at the pleadings of the parties makes it clear that though the factum of execution of agreement has not been denied by the defendant but the fact of his having received the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff has been put to contention and the defendant has asserted that the said amount remained with the said Shri Gopal Ajmera only. 8. Looking to such stands of the parties, learned trial court has framed not only issue No.1 but so also issue No.5 in that regard and both of them read together comprehensively cover the entire matter fundamentally in issue. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the payment and receipt of Rs.50,000/- being intrinsically related with the question of execution of document as pleaded by the plaintiff, issue No.1 has been framed in this regard. In fact, once the case of the plaintiff of having made payment of Rs.50,000/- has been put to contention by the defendant, an issue in that regard is obviously required to be framed. Such an issue, if framed only on the question as to whether Rs.50,000/- were paid by the plaintiff and were received by the defendant, the same would not be complete in itself. Frame of issue No.1, thus, remains unexceptionable. 9. Such an issue, if framed only on the question as to whether Rs.50,000/- were paid by the plaintiff and were received by the defendant, the same would not be complete in itself. Frame of issue No.1, thus, remains unexceptionable. 9. So far issue No.2 is concerned, it remains the statutory requirement for the plaintiff to plead and prove and for the trial court to consider if the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract while considering grant of a decree for specific performance and, therefore, framing of an issue like issue No.2 cannot be said to be incorrect or improper. 10. Further, the relief of specific performance being essentially a relief in equity, it is for the Court concerned to consider on the over all facts and surrounding circumstances, if a decree for specific performance should be granted or not; and, therefore, issue No.3 framed in that regard remains in accord with the requirements of law. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order obviously calls for no interference and this writ petition is required to be rejected. 12. It appears that the application for amendment of issues was moved by the plaintiff only in order to prolong the matter and to gain further time as is apparent from the observations made by the learned trial court in the impugned order after rejection of the application. Such frivolous application indicate the intention of the party concerned to prolong the matter one way or the other. The trial court would have been justified even in imposing costs while rejecting such a frivolous and baseless application. The trial court has rightly observed that no further time would be granted for the purpose of procuring the document in question. The trial court is expected to proceed expeditiously with the trial in view of the observations made by it in the order impugned. 13. The writ petition is rejected with the observations aforesaid. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court.Petition dismissed. *******