ORDER 1. The defendant, whose interlocutory application, being I.A.No.852 of 2007 in O.S.No.412 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, was dismissed, by order dated 31.08.2007, filed this revision. 2. Brief facts are that the respondent-Bank instituted the above suit for recovery of money against the petitioner herein stating that it advanced loan to the petitioner for purchase of a tractor and the petitioner mortgaged the properties and thereafter, as the loan amount was not repaid, the said suit was instituted. 3. Petitioner filed written statement opposing the suit and stating that the respondent-Bank granted loan in his favour and thereafter, he has deposited his title deeds. But subsequently, the tractor was not delivered to him, due to fraud, and he is also not in possession of the tractor. However, taking advantage of the title deeds, the respondent instituted the suit, as if the tractor was delivered and that the petitioner has not repaid the loan amount. 4. The trial Court framed a comprehensive issue "as to whether the plaintiff-bank is entitled to recover the suit amount together with subsequent interest from the defendant as prayed for. At that juncture, as the issue framed would not decide as to whether the amount was advanced or not and there was any collusion between the banker and dealer, it necessitated the petitioner to file the present interlocutory application seeking to frame additional issues. However, the Court below dismissed the same, by order, dated 31.08.2007, holding that there is no necessity for framing additional issues and the contentions raised by the petitioner would be considered while deciding the issue framed in the suit. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 6. Sri Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the issue framed by the Court below would not decide as to whether the amounts were advanced to the petitioner or not and whether there was any fraud or not. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 6. Sri Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the issue framed by the Court below would not decide as to whether the amounts were advanced to the petitioner or not and whether there was any fraud or not. He further contended that when it is the specific case of the petitioner that the tractor was never delivered to him, it is incumbent on the part of the court below to frame an issue with regard to that, but unfortunately, the Court below refused to frame the same and though the petitioner brought to the notice of this court to frame such an issue by filing an application, it rejected the same stating that such contention will be decided during trial. He also contended that unless an issue with regard to the said dispute is framed, the question of deciding the same would not arise at subsequent stage. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Narendra Reddy, per contra contended that the Court below took the view that the contention raised by the petitioner in the written statement will be considered while deciding the issue framed in the suit. He also contended that as the issue framed is a comprehensive one, nothing comes in the way of the petitioner leading evidence as to whether the vehicle was delivered to him or not. 8. Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with framing of issues. The very object of framing an issue is to determine the exact area of conflict and to enable the parties to lead evidence in those lines. In the absence of a specific issue, it will not be possible for the parties to lead evidence with regard to the specific controversy and even if any evidence is let in, the Court may not take it into consideration. In fact, this Court has categorically held that non-framing of an appropriate issue is not a mere curable irregularity and it deprives the liberty to adduce right evidence. The issue, which is framed in the suit, in my considered view, is only with regard to the entitlement of the banker to recover the suit amount. In fact, this Court has categorically held that non-framing of an appropriate issue is not a mere curable irregularity and it deprives the liberty to adduce right evidence. The issue, which is framed in the suit, in my considered view, is only with regard to the entitlement of the banker to recover the suit amount. When the banker establishes that the amount advanced by it is paid to the dealer, its burden is over and automatically the suit gets decreed. But, it is the case of the petitioner that bona fide he deposited the title deeds and because of the collusion between the banker and the dealer, the vehicle was never delivered to him and unless and until the vehicle is delivered, he is not liable to pay the amounts to the banker. Therefore, as it is his contention that fraud is committed and there is collusion between the banker and the dealer, an issue with regard to delivery of the vehicle is necessary. 9. I find force in the said contentions. The Court cannot simply say that it can decide the aspect with regard to delivery of the vehicle during the course of trial. As stated supra, in the absence of any issue, even if there is pleading, the same cannot be decided. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in I.A.No.852 of 2007 in O.S.No.412 of 2006. The trial Court is hereby directed to frame the following two issues and decide the suit. 1) Whether the vehicle was delivered to the defendant or not. If not, what is the effect? 2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is needless to observe that if the respondent seeks permission of the Court to implead the said dealer, it is always open to him to do so. There shall be no order as to costs.